Sitting of 1 April 1886

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Portsmouth and Hayling Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation) Act (1885) Amendment* [161]; Prevention of Hydrophobia* [162].
Second Reading—Poor Relief (Ireland)* [155]; Cape Race Lighthouse* [152]; Prison Officers' Superannuation [154].
Committee—Crofters (Scotland) (No. 2) [118] [Second Night]—R.P; Copyhold Enfranchisement [26]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.

  THE CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE CROWN —PRIVATE TRADING.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government still feel themselves unable to establish any general rules to restrict, within fitting bounds, the permanent Civil Servants of the Crown, paid to servo the State, from devoting their time and their energies to making money by private avocations, and by accepting appointments from Companies and private firms, in addition to those they hold
  430
  from the State, especially in the case of the higher Civil Servants, who regulate their own office hours and times of attendance?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, the disadvantage of the practice was obvious. It was equally certain that it was very difficult to lay down an absolute rule which would apply to all cases. He found that, especially among the humbler classes of the Civil Servants, there was a very great objection to their being prevented from taking part in business, especially like the co-operative business, throughout the country, in which they were largely engaged. It was not the intention, and it would be extremely difficult, to lay down any definite rule; and, as at present advised, he saw nothing for it except to deal with particular cases as they arose where such employment seemed objectionable.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1885 —OPERATION OF THE ACT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, To what extent advantage has been taken of the Land Purchase provisions of last Session; and if he will furnish information showing what classes have had the benefit of those provisions, and, especially, whether in any cases large farmers have been allowed to avail themselves of those terms to acquire considerable estates?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): A Return will be laid upon the Table, probably to-morrow, which will give the information asked for in the first paragraph of the Question. As regards the second paragraph of the Question, I am informed that the number of loans applied for up to the present date is 1,851, of which 94 are cases of tenants who pay £100 and upwards.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think the Return will be circulated to-morrow.

  IMPERIAL REVENUE, 1801–1840—PROPORTION OF TAXATION PAID BY IRELAND.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What was the gross amount of Imperial

  431
  Revenue raised by taxation in Ireland for the forty years, 1801 to 1840, both inclusive; what was the gross amount of Imperial Revenue raised by taxation in Ireland for the forty years, 1841 to 1880, both inclusive; whether some and what amount of the loans made for Irish purposes during the latter period were, in 1853, avowedly remitted in consequence of the enactment of fresh taxes levied on Ireland for general Revenue; and, whether these fresh taxes have yielded to the Imperial Exchequer, Returns in cash considerably in excess of all Government Loans for Irish purposes made during the last mentioned period from 1841 to 1880, whether remitted or still outstanding?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I can hardly answer this Question, divided as it is, upon the Paper. If the hon. Member will move for a Return on the subject there will be no objection to give it to him.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—POSTAGE OF REQUISITION FORMS.
  LORD ERNEST HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether complaints have reached him from various Boards of Guardians in Ireland with reference to the great expense to which the ratepayers are placed, owing to the fact that numbers of the Requisition Forms (Registration Act (Ireland), 1885), requiring the names of inhabitant occupiers, are returned to the clerk of the Union without the postage prepaid, thus putting the ratepayers to the expense of twice the deficiency of postage; and, whether, in consideration of the fact that these forms must be dealt with (under statute) by the clerk of the Union, whether returned stamped or otherwise, the Government will consider the advisability of allowing the Requisition Forms to be transmitted free through the Post Office?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): We find, Sir, in the course of this inquiry, that we are unable to raise the question without considerable legal difficulty. The matter is at present before the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland; and when their opinion is received I will communicate with the noble Lord.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—GRIEVANCES OF THE WRITERS.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasory, Whether the position of the Civil Service writers is now under the consideration of the Treasury; and, whether he can hold out hopes of a speedy decision upon a subject which so deeply affects a large body of deserving men?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, the whole question was at present under the consideration of the Treasury, and he hoped shortly to be in a position to give a decision upon it. Under those circumstances, and considering the fact that he had only been for a period of six weeks in Office, he would ask the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) to postpone the Motion which he had down upon this subject for Tuesday next.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that under those circumstances he would postpone his Motion.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked, whether the hon. Gentleman would also consider the case of the Inland Revenue officials?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he had received a communication from the hon. Member, which was now under consideration. They were dealing with the Civil Service Lower Division; but he could make no pledge with regard to the Excise.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. FRANK BROOK, OF BROOKBOROUGH, CO. FERMANAGH.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What action has been taken by the Government with reference to the speech of Mr. Brook, J.P., to which attention was called in the House on the 26th inst.?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I find that there are primâ facie grounds for assuming that the gentleman in question made use of the language imputed to him, and I have directed the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter.

  INLAND REVENUE—PROPERTY AND INCOME TAX—BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked Mr. Chancellor of the

  433
  Exchequer, Whether Building Societies are compelled to allow Income Tax to their members who pay interest on money advanced on mortgage; and, whether Building Societies are exempt from payment of Income Tax; and, if they are, whether it should not be by claiming rebate from the Inland Revenue authorities, rather than by refusing to allow the amount to their members when so paying interest?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, the answer to the first part of the Question was in the affirmative; and as to the second, Building Societies were not exempt from payment of Income Tax. He would refer the hon. Member for further information on the subject to an answer given by a preceding Chancellor of the Exchequer on December 4, 1884.

  THE LAND COMMISSION (ENGLAND AND WALES)—ASHDOWN FOREST.
  DR. R. MCDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, It being a fact that the Land Commission for England are now attempting to sell to about 120 squatters on Ashdown Forest, Sussex, the small bits of land that they have reclaimed from the forest during the last 12 to 18 years, whether compensation is to be given to those squatters for their houses and reclamation of land if they are not able to buy their plots and are consequently evicted; whether he is aware that the said Commissioners demand at the rate of £50 per acre as the price of these plots, while land similar to theirs when they took possession of it was sold a few years ago to Mr. Thompson, of Ashdown Park, for £8 an acre, and which he declared at a public meeting at Netley, on Tuesday the 23rd, was dear enough at £5 an acre; whether, considering the discrepancy of £50 per acre demanded from these peasants by the Land Commissioners and £5 or even £8 per acre as paid by Mr. Thompson, he will take such steps as will prevent these people being evicted till this discrepancy is properly explained; whether, in the event of a reasonable price being fixed for those bits of land, he will also make arrangements not only as to this but as to all other commons that English peasants may be enabled to buy their lands in a manner similar to those made for Irish peasants; whether the Commis-
  434
  sioners have interdicted these people from cutting peats in the forest (a right unquestioned till lately and rather beneficial than otherwise to the land), and in consequence they have to pay 33 s. 4d. per ton for coals; whether one of those interdicted declared at the mooting referred to above that he had to pay £1 5s. and costs for cutting peats, being convicted by the Uckfield Bench, one of the magistrates sitting thereon being a Commissioner for the forest; and, if this be so, whether, if the fine were illegally levied, it will be repaid to the man?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I have been in communication with the Land Commissioners on the subject of my hon. Friend's Question, and am informed by them that the small bits of land referred to are recent encroachments, illegally made; and they are now being sold under the Provisional Order, confirmed by Parliament, for the regulation of Ashdown Forest as an open space. The encroachers comprise all classes, from landowners to labourers. In the event of their not being able, or willing, to buy their plots, they are entitled to such compensation as is provided by the Enclosure Acts. The price asked is the fair market price, which it is the duty of the Commissioners to obtain. It, of course, varies with the quality and convenience of the land sold. Most of the encroachers have agreed to the price asked, and are willing to buy more land at the same rate. The Commissioners have not the power to interdict people from cutting peats; but the Provisional Order, before quoted, prohibits this practice, which is damaging to the surface of the forest.

  SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE—GREECE AND TURKEY—THE RUSSIAN FLEET.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information with respect to the disarmament of Greece, and with respect to the future position of the Prince of Bulgaria?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Russian Government has declined to accept the union of Eastern Roumelia and Bulgaria under Prince

  435
  Alexander for a longer period than five years; whether the Russian Government are about to withdraw their ships from the combined squadron of Suda; and what steps Her Majesty's Ministry are taking to prevent Greece from breaking the peace of Europe?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): In answer to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), I regret that I cannot give them any information with respect to the future position of the Prince of Bulgaria. Negotiations on the subject are proceeding, but they have not arrived at a point when it would be desirable to make a statement. With respect to the disarmament of Greece, I cannot now add anything to what has appeared in the public Press as regards the attitude of the Greek Government. I may, however, say that Her Majesty's Government adhere to the engagements entered into by their Predecessors. The departure of the Russian Squadron from Suda Bay was only a temporary movement, for the purpose of obtaining provisions, and we have reason to believe that the Russian vessels will at once rejoin the Allied Squadrons.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can fix the date upon which he will introduce the Police Superannuation Bill?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I had hoped to have been able to make some definite statement in answer to the hon. Member's Question; but, owing to the many details that have to be considered in connection with this measure, I cannot say more at present than that there will be no unnecessary delay in introducing the Bill. I hope to do so, at the latest, immediately after Easter.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &C.)—CONVERSION OF THE DAIRA AND DOMAIN LOANS.
  MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have any information as to the proposed Conversion of the Daira and Domain debts; and, whether he can give an undertaking that no scheme for the Conversion of
  436
  these debts will be sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government until this House shall have had an opportunity of forming a judgment on the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The outlines of a scheme for the conversion of the Domain and Daira Loans into a new issue of Egyptian Preference Stock have been submitted to Her Majesty's Government by Mr. Edgar Vincent, and are under examination. But the plan has not yet been worked out in any details, and is not in a condition to enable Her Majesty's Government to decide whether it is one which it is desirable to entertain. If adopted by the Egyptian Government the scheme would require the assent of the Powers—parties to the Law of Liquidation. The proposed operation is one solely for the improvement of the financial position of Egypt; it has no political significance, and would not involve any increased charge or liability for the British Exchequer; and Her Majesty's Government cannot give any pledge as to the stage in the negotiations at which they could lay the scheme before Parliament in case the proposals now under consideration should be eventually adopted.

  ARMY (SOUTH AFRICA)—THE BARRACKS AT CAPETOWN.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received information as to the alleged sanitary state of the infantry barracks at Capetown; whether so long ago as 25th November 1885, the Royal Scots had ten cases of typhoid fever, one of which was fatal; whether, notwithstanding representations as to the state of the drains and the abundance of loathsome vermin, the regiment was kept in these barracks until the month of March; and, whether they will be put in a thoroughly sanitary state before the next occupation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): There have been some cases of typhoid fever in the barracks at Cape Town; but, on the whole, the health of the troops has not been bad. The barracks are old, dilapidated, and quite unsuited for their purpose. It has been decided that money spent in improving the present structure would be thrown away, and such is the unhealthy condition of

  437
  the neighbourhood in which the barracks are that it is not considered desirable to erect new buildings there. Under these circumstances, measures will be pushed forward for providing accommodation for the greater portion of the troops at a healthier place—probably at Wynberg. Provision for this service is made in the Estimates of the present year.

  GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS—MEMORIAL OF PENSIONERS.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, When a reply will be given to the memorial relative to Greenwich Age Pensions from a public meeting of Naval Pensioners at Portsmouth, and which was lately laid before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF): The Admiralty are giving their best attention to the various points raised in the Memorial referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. After careful consideration a reply will be sent to the Petitioners.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—ALLEGED MALPRACTICES OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE AT TRALEE.

    RULES OF DEBATE—QUESTIONS.
    MR. DE COBAIN, who had a Notice on the Paper of his intention to put a Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reference to the action of the Mary Street Branch of the Irish National League, Tralee, on the occasion of the recent election of Poor Law Guardians for the Tralee Union, having intimated to Mr. Speaker that he did not intend putting the Question, Mr. Speaker did not call upon the hon. Gentleman, but called upon Mr. W. H. Smith (Strand, Westminster), whose name was the next on the Paper.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I have received a communication on the subject of the Question of the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain). I am informed that it contains serious charges against individuals which are altogether unfounded. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question to which the hon. Member refers has been
    438
    passed over, and is not now before the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What I wish, Sir, to know is, whether an hon. Member is entitled to put down upon the Notice Paper a Question involving a disgraceful—I may say an indecent—attack upon innocent persons, and then to absent himself and run away from his Question without giving the Minister to whom the Question was addressed an opportunity of replying and of clearing, in this House, the characters of the persons attacked? I wish to know, Sir, whether it will be competent for me to ask the Question of the Chief Secretary for Ireland myself?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question referred to has been postponed; but it will be competent for the hon. Member, if he thinks that it contains a reflection upon the character of anybody, to ask any Question which he thinks will place the matter in a proper light before the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That being so, I beg to ask the Question which appears upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain).
    MR. SPEAKER: I must again point out that the Question upon the Paper has been postponed. If at any time subsequently it should be put, it will be open for the hon. Member to found another Question upon it.
    At a later stage, after the Questions on the Paper had been gone through,
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, in order to test the manner in which Questions in this House are being made use of by hon. Members from the North of Ireland, I will now put to the Chief Secretary the Question which stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain), and which is as follows:—
    "To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention had been drawn to the fact, that the Mary Street Branch of the 'Irish National League,' Tralee, on the occasion of the recent election of poor law guardians for the Tralee Union, threatened in the most serious manner any voter who would support Mr. John Dundon the Conservative candidate; and who would withhold his suffrages from Mr. William Flynn the late chairman of the Tralee Board of Guardians; whether the 'League' had supplied a large quantity of intoxicating drink to voters, and, in consequence of this, a man named

    439
    William Denny, was brought into Tralee in a state of insensibility, that Drs. Murray and Mulally were obliged to use the stomach pump, with the result that they extracted a pint and a-half of alcohol from the unfortunate man; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to set aside this election in consequence of these practices?"
    My chief reason for putting the Question is that I have received communications respecting the innocent parties named in it, and upon whom most disgraceful attacks are made by the shameless statements put forward in the Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is a Rule of this House that it is not competent for one hon. Member to put a Question which appears in the name of another hon. Member, and which that hon. Member wishes to withdraw. But I think there is great force in the protest which the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) has made, and that Questions which reflect upon the character of individuals ought not to be allowed to remain on the Paper a moment longer than is necessary. Therefore, if the Chief Secretary for Ireland chooses to reply to the Question I shall make no objection to its being put.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The police report that there is no such branch of the National League in Tralee as the Mary Street Branch; that there was no candidate named John Dundon, and that William Flynn was not a candidate. They can find no support for the statement as to drink being supplied at the election, and they say that the story about William Denny is entirely without foundation.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is aware that the only William Denny in Tralee is or not a nephew of Sir William Denny, a Conservative, and of the same politics as the hon. Gentleman who gave Notice of the Question?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I really cannot answer for the genealogy of all the Dennys in Tralee.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION —SCALE OF COSTS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If he will provide, by legislation or otherwise, for
  440
  a maximum scale of costs to be incurred by the returning officer in the election of the School Board for London; that the accounts shall be rendered in detail by him to the School Board, and shall be published for the information of the ratepayers; and that a right of appeal to the Education Department against any charges that may be objected to shall be given to any vestry or other rating authority before precepts for the payment of the charges incurred are issued?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): As a period of nearly three years must elapse before a new Order in Council is issued to regulate another School Board election for London, it would be premature to consider a maximum scale of costs at the present time. A promise has already been given that the next Order in Council will require the Returning Officer to send the accounts to the School Board. Whether a right of appeal shall be given to any vestry is a subject worthy of consideration, and will be fully considered when the next Order is prepared.

  CUSTOMS ESTABLISHMENTS—REDUNDANT CLERKS.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Secretary to the Board of Customs in 1883 informed the senior redundant clerks who had been induced to join the new Outdoor Department as First Class Examining Officers that the contemplated reduction in the Class of Surveyors would be made by dropping only one vacancy in three, so as to mitigate to some extent the injury inflicted by the partial withdrawal of the chief inducement which led to their accepting important alterations in their conditions of service; and, if it is the intention of the Board of Customs to depart from this promise?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I have referred this Question to the Board of Customs, and am informed by them that they have inquired of their Secretary as to the communication which took place in 1883 between him and the redundant clerks as to the reduction in the number of surveyors; and he states that what he told them was that when, some years ago, large reductions had been made in

  441
  some of the upper ranks in the Navy, the reductions had been gradually effected by dropping one vacancy in three, and that the Board might, perhaps, adopt some such course in dealing with the surveyors.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE LOYALIST MEETING IN CORK—ALLEGED ASSAULT ON MR. ROBERT WALSH, T.C.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at a meeting of "Loyalists" held in the City of Cork on Friday, 27th instant, Mr. Robert Walsh, T.C., on applying for a ticket of admission, was stabbed in the face with a sword-cane, and was wounded so severely as to necessitate his being conveyed to the infirmary for surgical treatment; whether he has seen a report of the proceedings on that day in The Cork Herald, in which the following sentences occur:—
  "Though no resistance was offered and the attack was altogether on the part of the Orangemen, one of them deliberately drew a revolver and blazed away through Cook Street, firing three shots, and dancing through the streets like a raving maniac.
  "But this was not all; another of the lot drew his revolver and cried out to a solitary man in the street, and when the latter did not choose to accept the challenge of an armed lunatic, the latter said he was a coward;"
  whether it is a fact that the police made no effort to discover or arrest the persons who displayed the sword-cane and revolvers, but made several charges with batons on the people, and beat many unoffending citizens, who were quietly walking home; that they continued these attacks on the people until the mayor of the city interfered and checked the police in their career; and, whether, should any other similar meetings take place in the South of Ireland, he will take such steps as may be necessary to compel the police to take a proper sense of their duty by refraining from assaults on the people, and by making some efforts to arrest and prosecute those who display firearms and sword-canes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed, Sir, that Mr. Walsh had a ticket for this meeting, and was allowed to enter the hall, but being recognized
  442
  before he had entered the room he was turned out. There was a scuffle when he was ejected, and he sustained a cut lip. No sword-cane was used, nor did Mr. Walsh obtain treatment at the infirmary, so far as the police have been able to ascertain. No harshness was used towards the crowd when the Loyalists were retiring; but two shots like those of revolvers were heard, and the officer in command sent some constables and patrol men in the direction the sounds came from, with orders to investigate the matter. Before they had proceeded very far, however, the patrol were met by the Mayor, who directed them to return. I should add that it was when things looked threatening that the Mayor attended, and at the request of the District Inspector.
  LORD ERNEST HAMILTON: I should like to ask whether any collision that occurred was not occasioned by a crowd—which, according to The Daily Herald, numbered 5,000 people—who, while the National Anthem was being sung inside, insulted the passers by?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not, I am afraid, possess local knowledge enough to answer that Question.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—LOSS OF THE "OREGON."
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has any further information as to the cause of the disaster to the steamship Oregon; whether any vessel that could have come into collision with the Oregon is known to be missing; whether he is able, from the facts of the case, as far as they are at present ascertained, to explain how it was that a first-class steamer, constructed by eminent builders, with water-tight compartments, to prevent her in such a case from sinking, could only be kept afloat for a few hours after the injury she received; into how many water-tight compartments the Oregon was divided; whether their construction was considered satisfactory; and, whether steps cannot be taken to render such vessels less easily sinkable?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): Some days ago I ordered a full inquiry to be instituted into the causes of the disaster to the steamship Oregon; and until that in-

  443
  quiry is completed I think the House will agree that I should not express any opinion on the subject.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—LURGAN UNION— ALLEGED INTIMIDATION.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he had seen the statements made in The Northern Whig, of 24th instant, the leading Liberal journal in the North of Ireland, respecting the recent election of Poor Law Guardians for the Lurgan Union, in which the freedom of election was seriously interfered with by the National League and the Roman Catholic Priesthood; that Catholic voters were threatened by the Priests, if they would not vote for the Nationalist candidates, they would be proclaimed non-Catholic; that the National League also used threats of a most shameful character, informing one man, a voter, that if he did not vote in obedience to their dictum, he would be denied the rites of the Church and Christian burial, and that when he would die, he would be buried like a dog; that, in another case, the League had threatened to burn the house over a voter's head if he persisted in disobedience, and that another voter was told they would put a bullet through him if he voted for a Protestant; that mobs followed the Police when distributing the papers, and a loyalist band was fired upon by the Nationalists; if he would direct the attention of the Local Government Board to these matters in order that the elections held under such circumstances might be quashed; and, if, in view of this terrorism, he would immediately take steps to introduce a similar measure to that of which notice had been given by the Right honourable gentleman the Member for Bristol, when Leader of this House, to suppress the National League in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Sir, careful inquiry has been made into these statements quoted from The Northern Whig, and it cannot be ascertained that there is any truth in the allegations that persons were threatened as stated. The police, of their own knowledge, can state that no mob followed them, that no bands were out on that occasion, and that no shots were fired.

  ASTISTIC COPYRIGHT—LEGISLATION.
  MR. AGNEWasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, in the legislation which Government contemplates in regard to copyright, it is proposed to deal with the important question of artistic copyright?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The Government have introduced a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the Berne International Convention, which includes the subject of artistic copyright. They also have under consideration the introduction of a Bill dealing with the whole question of copyright, and hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—DISTRESS IN CLARE ISLAND, CO. MAYO.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the greater number of tenants on Clare Island, county Mayo, have been served with, notice of eviction; and, if it is a fact that many of those families are known by the Irish Government to be in want of the necessaries of life, and to be now in receipt of charitable relief?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed, Sir, that 27 processes for non-payment of rent have been served on the tenants in Clare Island, where most of the people owe large arrears. The time which has elapsed since Notice was given of the Question by the hon. Member has not been sufficient to enable me to ascertain the exact facts as to the second paragraph; but, from circumstances within the knowledge of the Government, I think it may reasonably be assumed that some of the tenants who have been processed for rent are in receipt of charitable relief. If it should prove to be really so, I must say it appears to me strange—to use no stronger term—that such a step should be resorted to at a time when the public are coming forward with subscriptions towards the relief of these same people, and when the Government have thought it incumbent upon them to bring in a measure for the same purpose.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1879.
  SIR JOHN GORST(for Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How it is that the consolidated forms under "The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879," have not yet been issued, and to inform the House when they will be issued; whether on the 28th November 1882, in reply to a question by the honourable Member for Warwick, Sir W. Harcourt, Home Secretary, stated that delay had arisen, and that the Lord Chancellor had issued instructions for the forms to be settled as soon as possible; whether on the 4th March 1884, in reply to a question by Mr. Grantham, the same answer was given; and, what steps he has taken, or will take, to ensure an early issue of these much needed forms?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid there has been a considerable delay in the issue of those forms—a delay which I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman has been unavoidable. However, I am informed that the forms are now very nearly ready, and will be issued as soon as possible.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—MOHILL UNION, CO. LEITRIM—DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING PAPERS BY THE POLICE.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, in the Mohill (county Leitrim) Poor Law Union, the distribution of voting papers, a duty hitherto performed every year by the men of the Irish Constabulary, has had to be done in the present year by the rate collectors and relieving officers of the Union, in consequence of the employment of the police in executing an extraordinary number of evictions in the county; whether the Union will be recouped the expense of the distribution and collection of the papers; and, how it happened that the police were withdrawn from the performance of their statutory duty, and wholly employed upon evictions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Sir, there is no statutory obligation on the police to distribute voting papers. Under their
  446
  regulations they are directed to render such aid, subject to the condition that it shall interfere with their paramount and special duties. I am informed that other duties absorbed all the spare men in the county of Leitrim and elsewhere between the 17th and 25th of last month; and it was, consequently, impossible to render the Guardians the assistance usually afforded them. I am not aware that there is any provision for recouping the expenses of Guardians in such an instance.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)— OVERCHARGES IN COLLECTION OF COUNTY CESS BY MR. JOHN GARTLEY, KILCAR, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. BERNARD KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that John Gartley, county cess collector for the parish of Kilcar, in the county of Donegal, hag, in a large number of cases, made overcharges in his cess collections; if this practice has extended over a considerable period; if recently, after various complaints had been made, Gartley went through his district and (pretending that his overcharges were only mistakes in his figures) offered to refund the sums paid over and above the amount for which the parties were liable; and, if an inquiry, with a view to having justice done, will be directed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Cess collectors are appointed by the Grand Jury, and are responsible to them. Anybody having any complaint against them should, make it before the Grand Jury; the Government cannot, therefore, hold any inquiry into the matter. I am advised, however, that if the cess collector has obtained any money from persons under false pretences, he can, upon sworn evidence being brought forward, be prosecuted for that offence.

  COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS— THE REPORT—ALLEGED FORGERY OF SIGNATURES TO PETITION FROM EAST CAVAN.
  MR. CLANCYasked the honourable baronet the Member for Walsall, with reference to the following statement in the latest Report of the Committee on Petitions:—

  447
  "Your Committee have, in the case of the Petition from East Cavan (against a separate Parliament for Ireland), reported to the House the number of names appended thereto, but they are of opinion that many of the names are in the same handwriting;"
  whether he will state the number of forged names in the Petition referred to; whether he will recommend any steps to be taken with a view to distinguishing between the signatures of adults and those of infants in Petitions against a separate Parliament for Ireland; and, whether any Petitions from Ireland against a separate Parliament for that Country have been presented this Session which have been without forged signatures? Lest it should be supposed that the Petition had been presented by the hon. Member for West Belfast, he wished to state that it had been presented by the hon. Member for North Armagh.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in reply, said, that the signatures of 117 names to the Petition were evidently in the same handwriting, being written in 23 batches. There had not been a Petition presented in the present Session from Ireland upon the same subject and with the same object which did not contain some signatures which were not in the handwriting of the persons whose names were subscribed. As to recommending what steps should be taken in the matter, he must repeat the answer he gave a few nights ago—namely, that this was a question rather for the House than for the Committee, whose duties were purely Ministerial, and had been carried out in directing attention to the matter, as they had done in this case.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSON: Might I ask a further Question of the hon. Baronet? I would ask, whether any Petition upon any subject largely signed is not liable to the same objection that some of the signatures would be the same?
  [No reply.]

  EMIGRATION (IRELAND)—THE DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Local Government Board have offered to the Guardians of the Westport Union £7 for each person emigrated from that Union; and, if so, whether he will
  448
  direct the Local Government Board to use any funds at their disposal for such purposes to provide food for the starving people of the Western Islands?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It was represented to the Local Government Board that certain families on the West Coast had expressed a desire to emigrate if they had the means of doing so. The Board thereupon communicated with some of the Western Boards of Guardians, informing them that there was an unexpended balance of the sums granted for emigration purposes under the Arrears and Tramways Acts, and that those sums, upon certain conditions, might be applied towards carrying out the wishes of the people referred to. From the replies which have been received, however, the Guardians do not appear to be disposed to take advantage of the offer. Legislation would be necessary to enable this fund to be applied to other relief purposes.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. EDWARD RUSSELLasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it will be possible to issue ad interim reports of the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Elementary Education?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): The hon. Member should, put his Question to the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire, who is President of the Royal Commission. I am not a Member of it, and have no administrative connection with it.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the Commission possessed the power to issue such Reports, and that they probably would exercise it, when it should appear advantageous to do so.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—DRUMFIN DIVISION, SLIGO UNION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the election of a Poor Law guardian for the Drumfin Division of the Sligo Union, the returning officer was entitled to refuse to allow

  449
  two ratepayers named Peter Kiland and Thomas Gunning to vote, on the ground that they were in arrear of Seed Rate; whether the returning officer counted for Mr. Patterson, one of the candidates, six votes in respect of voting papers purporting to be signed by Mr. Jemmett Duke, though Mr. Jemmett Duke was absent from Ireland, and did not sign the papers; and, whether, as Mr. Patterson's opponent's majority was two, Mr. Melinoe, the candidate who obtained the majority of valid votes, will be declared elected?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Yes, Sir; I am informed that the Returning Officer did disallow the votes referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. This, I am informed, he was legally bound to do. There was nothing before the Returning Officer to warrant his concluding that Colonel Duke had not signed the paper. If the defeated candidate appeals on the ground that the Colonel did not sign the paper, the Local Government Board will take the case into consideration?
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that the decision of the Local Government Board was overruled by the Court of Queen's Bench?
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he was not aware of that fact.

  PUBLIC OFFICES—THE NEW ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If Her Majesty's Government will consent to the appointment of a Committee to re-consider the whole question of the provision for a new Admiralty and War Office?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, he understood the Question of the right hon. Gentleman to be put with a view to ascertaining whether it would not be possible to provide for the wants of the Admiralty and War Office at less cost than was now proposed—in point of fact, whether it was necessary to pull down the existing Admiralty. If that were so, all he could say was that he would be very glad that such an inquiry should be made, and if the right hon. Gentleman would move for a Committee, he would be glad to support him.

  ARMY—SERVICE IN THE AUXILIARY FORCES.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether service in the ranks of the Auxiliary Forces (five years of which service under recent regulations counts as one year's commissioned service towards honorary rank) is to be counted at the rate of one year's commissioned service for every five years, or whether complete periods of five years will alone be taken into consideration?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): I do not quite understand the point of the noble Viscount's Question; but if he means to ask whether the five years' service must have been continuous, my answer is no.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENT.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the increase to the Ordnance Store Department of three Assistant Commissaries General, authorised under Item D, Vote 9, Army Estimates 1885–6, has not been carried out; and, whether, as the addition of nine Deputy Assistant Commissaries General, authorised at the same time, has already been carried into effect, he will cause the appointments to the higher ranks to be gazetted forthwith?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): I must remind the noble Viscount that an Estimate is not in itself an authority for additional expenditure. Although when the Estimates for 1885–6 were framed it was anticipated that three more Assistant Commissaries General of Ordnance would be required, it was found, later in the year, that such an addition to the rank was not necessary.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— CANTERBURY GAOL—CASE OF WILLIAM JOSLIN.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the circumstances connected with the death of William Joslin, who died in Canterbury Prison on the 19th inst.; whether this man, while suffering from pneumonia, was called

  451
  upon to undergo the ordinary prison discipline; and whether, at the coroner's inquest, evidence was given to that effect; and, whether he will direct an official investigation to be made into the case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): As far as I have been able to ascertain on the short Notice which my hon. Friend has given me, the prisoner William Joslin complained to the medical officer on Monday, the 15th ultimo. The next day he was taken off the treadwheel. On the 17th, he was ordered medicine and put to bed in his cell. On the 19th he was ordered into hospital, and he died on the 21st. The medical officer does not seem to me, as far as my information at present goes, to have recognized sufficiently early that the case was one of pneumonia. I shall order a most strict inquiry into the whole matter.

  FISHERIES (EAST COAST)—ENCROACHMENTS OF BELGIAN TRAWLERS.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the renewed depredations by Belgian trawlers on English fishing vessels belonging to the Port of Lowestoft; and, whether he will order a cruiser to proceed to the fishing grounds forthwith, and to remain there till the Spring fishing is concluded?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. HIBBERT): Two sailing cruisers and one steam vessel are detailed for duties in connection with the fisheries on the East Coast, and have been continually cruising there since Christmas. No reports of any recent depredations by Belgian trawlers have been received; but orders have now been given for an additional steam cruiser to visit and cruise in the neighbourhood of Lowestoft.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—PUBLICATIONS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE— ISSUE TO CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE.
  MR. F. HARDCASTLEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is willing to enter into arrangements on liberal terms with Chambers of Commerce, and other recognised Associations of Traders, whereby, on payment annually of a moderate sum calculated on
  452
  the number of their members, every member of such Chamber or Association shall receive by post a copy of every commercial circular or other report, and other Government publications bearing on trade subjects?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The Board of Trade will be very pleased to consider any proposal for the distribution of the publications issued by them to Chambers of Commerce. They could not, however, undertake the sale and distribution of such publications at reduced rates to individual members of such institutions, as that would be a duty quite beyond the province of the Board of Trade, and would entail considerable expense on the Treasury.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If the Government intend to introduce a measure to amend "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," during the present Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Mr. HENEAGE): The Lord President intends to introduce a measure to amend the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, before Easter.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— SCULPTURES AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, With reference to the sepulchral and other sculptures at present stored in the basement of the British Museum, what is the height from floor to ceiling of the place in question; what are the heights of the surrounding buildings, and at what distances do they stand from the windows of the place in question; whether any beyond a few of the sculptures can be sketched or properly viewed where they at present stand; whether the same trouble and skill is given to the cleansing of these sculptures as to those in the rest of the Museum; and, whether, according to a recent estimate, a great part of these sculptures could, be properly exhibited in a room on the site of the old print room, by the alteration of certain door-

  453
  ways, at a cost of not more than £2,000?
  MR. HANBURYasked, Whether any provision was made in the Estimates for exhibiting these sculptures?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The basement in question is vaulted, the height from floor to crown of arch being 12 feet 2 inches. There are more rooms than one in which the Greek and Roman sculptures are placed. One of these, for sepulchral monuments, has only borrowed light on each side; the distance of the adjacent building is 26 feet 4 inches, and the height of the wall 33 feet 2 inches. The greater part of the sepulchral monuments can be viewed and sketched by students when the weather is not unfavourable; but they cannot be visited by the general public. The sculptures in the other rooms can be sufficiently seen; but the rooms are unsuitable for purposes of general exhibition. The sculptures are not regularly dusted as are those in the exhibition galleries, in which there is a greater amount of dust from the traffic of visitors. They are carefully washed once a year. They were so washed in September and October, 1884, in April, 1885, and in January, 1886. The room formerly occupied by the department of prints and drawings can be made to accommodate the principal part of the sepulchral monuments at an estimated cost of £1,600.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—RESULTS- EXAMINATIONS AND FEES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, for several years past, the Results Examinations have not been held in the month of March, while the Results year ends in February; whether the payment of the Results' fees has often been delayed until June; and, whether there would be any difficulty in having the Results' fees paid within a fortnight or three weeks after the Examination?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that the general rule of
  454
  the Education Office is that the results fees should be paid in the month following that in which the Examination is held. In exceptional cases unavoidable delays occasionally arise. The Commissioners state that, having regard to the engagements and duties of their Inspectors, it is not in their power to undertake to do more than to carry out the general rule I have mentioned. The number of Results Examinations held in March has been largely in excess of the average number for the other months of the year.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Would it be possible for the Commissioners of Education to distribute the delay more equally over different parts of Ireland, so that our unfortunate county will not be put to this inconvenience year by year?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I will lay the suggestion before the Commissioners, and see what they say.

  ARMY—DEPOT OF THE RIFLE BRIGADE.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the establishment of Officers laid down for the Depôt of the Rifle Brigade in Special Army Circular, dated 10th November 1885, has not been made up to its proper strength, viz. three Majors, three Captains, and ten Lieutenants; whether the actual strength of the Depôt is correctly shown in the monthly official Army List for March as being two Majors, two Captains, and three Lieutenants; and, when it is proposed to fill up these vancancies for nine Officers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): Three out of the four battalions which compose the Rifle Brigade being abroad, it was necessary to provide for an unusually large depôt. An establishment of officers was accordingly fixed as a maximum to be employed whenever the number of recruits might render the services of so many officers requisite. It was not, however, contemplated to add officers to the Army for the purpose, but to make up any deficiency by employing officers of Militia. There are now two Majors, three Captains, and four Subalterns at the depôt, who suffice for the men at present there.

  ADMIRALTY—ADMINISTRATION OF THE DOCKYARDS.
  MR. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is true that, upon the recommendation of a Committee, consisting of a Vice Admiral who has had no experience at a Home Dockyard, an Admiralty Clerk, and a Constructive Officer in a subordinate position in the Admiralty Office, vital changes have been made in the administration of the Dockyards, whereby four principal Officers of great experience and ability have been "forcibly retired;" if it is true that new permanent offices were created, causing an additional expenditure of £5,300 a year; if it is true that all the Committee and their Secretaries have been appointed to lucrative offices, three of which were created on their own recommendation; and, whether it is true that the recommendations in the Report submitted by the Committee to their Lordships are at variance on material points with the evidence given by the Superintendents of the Dockyards?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. HIBBERT): In reply to the first paragraph of the Question of the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow, I have to say that it is true. The Committee he refers to was composed of a Vice Admiral, who had had experience as a Superintendent at Malta Dockyard, of a principal clerk, and of a constructive officer, who was attached to the Surveyor of Dockyards. The Report of this Committee was referred to a superior Committee, consisting of the following Members:—The late Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie), Sir Reginald Welby, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and the Permanent Secretary and the Accountant General of the Navy. The extra expense of the new Government offices created at the Dockyards is about £2,700, and not the amount stated in the Question. It is true that all the Members of the Committee and their Secretaries have been appointed to important offices; but these gentlemen have been selected by the late First Lord of the Admiralty as the most suitable persons for the vacant posts. In reply to the last clause of the hon. Member's Question, I can only say that action was taken on the
  456
  evidence as a whole, full consideration having been given to the views expressed by the Superintendents of the Dockyards. Although I have answered the Question, I may point out to the hon. Member that it would have been much more convenient to give an explanation in Committee of Supply than in answer to a Question.

  PHŒNIX PARK (DUBLIN)—THE NEW BARRACKS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the building of the new barrack in the Phœnix Park has been suspended as promised, pending parliamentary discussion; and, when is the Vote likely to be brought on?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): Yes; the work has been suspended, and an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the matter; but I cannot now predict when the Vote will come on.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MAGNIACasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he proposes to take the East India Committee, and, if he cannot name a day, whether he will give reasonable notice of the day, when determined on; and, having regard to the great interest felt in the question by large and important trading and agricultural interests, whether he will take the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill on an early day; and, if so, on what day?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): As regards the first branch of the Question, I am afraid that, owing to a difference of opinion which has unfortunately sprung up, and it not being in my power at this moment to assign a time for the discussion, the nomination must stand over for a short time; but due Notice will be given before it is proposed to take it. With regard to the second part, I am not able to form any estimate as to what we can do with regard to the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill until I see my way more perfectly, which I may be able to do after the sitting to-night with regard to the Crofters Bill.

  EDUCATION—APPOINTMENTS TO PROFESSORSHIPS.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in cases in which professorships and other similar appointments are in the gift of a Minister of the Crown, or of Her Majesty, on the recommendation of a Minister, the practice could be observed, which is customary with other individuals or boards exercising similar rights of patronage, of giving public notice and fixing a certain day for making the appointment, by which means all candidates would have an equal opportunity of making application, and (if necessary) of sending in testimonials?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): This Question refers to two classes of appointments, with one of which I am practically conversant, and with the other of which I am not practically conversant. In the first class are placed certain appointments to Professorships, which it is the duty of the Prime Minister to recommend. From my own personal experience, I am not aware that any change is required. Of course, I can conceive the opinion—though I should be far from saying—that whenever an appointment is to be made, public notice should be given, and candidates should be invited to apply; but I do not think that principle could advantageously apply to the class of appointments I now speak of in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and I am bound to say this—not in reference to my own knowledge in this branch of duty, but speaking of this class of appointments—I think they have, on the whole, been properly and creditably filled. With regard to the Professorships which my hon. Friend, I presume, has in view—these are the Professorships in the Scottish Universities—with respect to these appointments, I have no practical experience whatever; but I understand from my right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) that the whole object this Question has in view is an object which is perfectly obtained by the present state of things. Without any formal notice, the vacancy is always matter for notoriety, and ample time is always given before making the appointment. Consequently, I am under the
  458
  impression that all persons who are disposed to offer themselves have ample opportnnity of doing so under the present arrangements, and I am not prepared, as at present advised, to say that any change should take place.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  (Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
    [BILL 118.] COMMITTEE. [Progress 29th March.]

      SECOND NIGHT.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1 (A crofter shall not be removed except for breach of statutory conditions).
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): It appears to me that Sub-section 6, which gives the landlord the right of entering upon the holding for the purpose of taking stone, marble, gravel, sand, brick-clay, fire-clay, or slate, is capable of amendment. I propose to strike out, after the word "sand," the words "brick-clay, fire-clay," and to add, at the end, the words "or other workable minerals." The effect will be to make that part of the sub-section read "quarrying or taking stone, marble, gravel, sand, clay, slate, or other workable minerals." The words as they stand are not sufficiently comprehensive. I know that there are many other minerals which are workable, besides those mentioned in the clause; and I think it is desirable to extend the definition in the way I have suggested. It is for the interest of everyone that it should be extended in order to encourage employment in the neighbourhood.
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, after the word "sand," to omit the words "brick clay, fire clay."—(The Lord Advocate.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause."
      MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think that the second word "clay" might be allowed to remain.
      THE LORD ADVOCATEassented.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I also think it would be quite sufficient to strike out the words "brick clay, fire," after the word "sand," so that the second word "clay" would still be retained, and would follow the word "sand."
      Question, "That the words 'brick clay, fire,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): That, I think, will cover the Amendment of which Notice has been given by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Baird) to include "thatching clay."
      THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Does the hon. Member propose to move his Amendment?
      MR. BAIRD: No.
      On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 13, omit the word "or;" in the same line, after "slate," insert "or other workable minerals."
      MR. MACFARLANE: The next division of the sub-section gives the landlord the right of entering the holding for the purpose of cutting or taking timber or peats, excepting timber and other trees planted by the crofter or his predecessors in the holding, being of the same family, or that may be necessary for ornament or shelter, and excepting also such peats as may be required for the use of the holding. I propose, in line 16, to omit the words "being of the same family." A few minutes ago I might have said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate would not accept a single Amendment we propose to insert in the Bill; but I am not able to say that now, because he has just accepted one, although of a very trifling character. The object of my Amendment is to secure to the crofter the right to timber planted by any of his predecessors. I am not disposed, after the experience we had on Monday night, to waste my own time, or the time of the Committee, at any considerable length in a futile attempt to extend the scope of the Bill, because I gather, from the course taken on the
      460
      previous occasion, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is supported by the whole strength of the Conservative Party in the Division Lobby, and that any such attempt would be a failure. But on analyzing the Division List of Monday last I find that, leaving out the Opposition and the Official votes, I had really a majority of 11. I propose to move this Amendment formally, and to take a division upon it, in order to test the opinion of the Committee once more. It will then be for me and for others, who are trying to make the Bill of some service, to consider whether it will be worth while to make any further effort, or to allow the Bill to pass in the precise form the Government desire it to assume. It would almost appear that the will of the Government is no more to be changed than the laws of the Medes and Persians. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, to leave out the words "being of the same family."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): There is no indisposition whatever on the part of the Government to accept any Amendment which appears to be reasonable and proper; and I shall give, in a few sentences, a very good reason for retaining the words "being of the same family." Indeed, I should not have been surprised if it had been suggested that those words give too great a latitude. It was explained the other evening that no person holding a croft could be there by virtue of any assignment, or under free sale, because there is no such thing as a right of assignment in such cases of yearly tenancy in Scotland; therefore the only way in which the crofter could come to have the holding at all would either be by direct contract with his landlord, or by having succeeded to it from some other person of the same family. So desirous have we been to give the full benefit of the hereditary principle in the case of the crofters that, apart altogether from strict heirship, we propose to give them the benefit of all improvements effected by the family in connection with the croft. If these

      461
      words are struck out, the clause will read—
      "Excepting timber and other trees planted by the crofter or his predecessors in the holding, or that may be necessary for ornament or shelter."
      I would ask the Committee to see what the effect of that would be. It would amount to this—that if the holding had fallen back into the hands of the landlord, or had been surrendered to him and had been relet by the landlord to a new tenant, the improvements would be improvements by a predecessor, and would have to be paid for, even though the croft so improved had passed from the proprietor into the hands of the new tenant. I will ask the Committee if that is at all reasonable? It is said—"Look at the Irish Act;" and my reply is that there was good reason for the inclusion of these words in the Irish Act, because, if I rightly understand, the right of assignment of the goodwill exists in Ireland. ["No, no!"] It exists generally, I believe; but it is not so with us in Scotland. That is the explanation of what was done in the case of the Irish Act. I may be wrong, but I believe I am correct, when I say that there is a presumption of assignability in the case of an Irish tenant, and of an English tenant also; whereas in Scotland it is the other way. As a matter of fact, in Ireland it would be perfectly impossible, in many cases, to get a predecessor in the same family; and the effect of our proposal in this clause is, that if the crofter derives his title from any member of the same family he has a right to have certain things reserved to which he has acquired a right by succession. I believe I have stated reasons which will satisfy the Committee that there is something in the words which have been inserted in the clause.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Although assignment may not be the law of Scotland, there are many crofters now in the possession of holdings who would be injuriously affected by the inclusion of these words in the clause, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate seems from his remarks to imply that the restriction is only to be operative in the future. In every case where a crofter is in possession of a holding, and the landlord claims a right to cut down trees, I pre-
      462
      sume it would be necessary for the crofter to prove that the croft was still in the possession of the family by whom the trees were planted, and also to prove his own connection with the family. Of course, the landlord would always have it in his power to prevent the holding from falling into the hands of any other family by refusing to accept a proposed tenant. Under these circumstances I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane).
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I cannot think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate can have thoroughly considered the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane). It is not a question of compensation at all. The clause does not deal with the question of compensation, and this part of it has reference to the right of the landlord to enter the holding in order to cut down trees which he has not planted. That raises no question of compensation at all. The case is this—the trees may have been planted in the croft by a predecessor, and the real question is whether the crofter is entitled to the improvements of his predecessor, or whether the landlord has a right to cut down trees which he has not placed in the croft. I can see no reason why he should be allowed to enter, cut down, and take them away. When we come to consider the extreme paucity of trees in the Highlands of Scotland, I think that such places might be spared. I therefore think the Amendment of my hon. Friend ought to be accepted.
      MR. PICTON: The authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is, of course, very great; but I certainly think that there is a considerable amount of uncertainty as to the meaning of the phrase "being of the same family," and that it ought to be better defined, although, even if it were, I admit that I should still object to it strongly. Of course, a man's son would be of the same family, and his brother, I presume, as well as his cousin, or a first cousin once removed, or a second cousin. I understand that in Scotland relationship is carried out very widely, and it strikes me that there would be considerable difficulty, unless this phrase is better denned, in arriving at a conclusion as to what "being of the same family" really includes. I know there

      463
      are cases among the crofters—and I believe they are very numerous—where a consideration has been paid by the successor to a croft to his predecessor. It is not always paid in public, and perhaps there has not always been a receipt given; but, as a matter of fact, a consideration does occasionally pass from one to another as one man succeeds another to a croft—such cases, for instance, as where a house has been pulled down by a predecessor and rebuilt, or land has been reclaimed to a considerable extent. I myself met, on one occasion, a small householder living by the seashore who had expended money in that way in order to compensate his predecessor in title for the improvements he had effected. Are such purchasers as these to receive nothing? I think that where a custom of this kind has been established, we ought to consider the equity of the case, and make the same provision here as has been done in Ireland. I shall, therefore, earnestly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane).
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I may explain that the words "being of the same family" have been introduced into the clause in order to give the greatest possible latitude and to cover any persons within the range of succession. I am quite aware that this is not a clause relating to compensation. The same principle will arise in a great number of cases, and if there are any cases such as that which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), of private bargains entered into without the knowledge of the landlord, they have no legal force whatever.
      MR. MACFARLANE: In answer to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the difference between the law of Ireland and the law of Scotland, I will read a few remarks made by the Prime Minister in introducing the Irish Land Act. He said—
      "But what I wish to impress upon the House is this—that, apart from those specialities, the principle of assignment is a principle rooted in law. By artificial provisions, introduced into agreements, through commanding position of landlords, assignment has been generally prohibited; but the assignment of the tenants' interest, whatever it be, is a principle, not only of Irish, but of English Land Laws and of the Land Laws of Europe generally."—(3 Hansard, [260] 901.)
      464
      That was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and it has just been contradicted by the Lord Advocate. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Exactly the other way.] As to the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in opposition to the removal of this limitation, my impression is that a large number of crofters in Scotland have derived their rights to the holdings they now occupy by purchase from other persons. But I would ask, what does it matter to anyone by whom the improvements on the holding which a man has occupied for years were made—whether they were made by the man who now occupies the holding, or by anybody else, so long as the crofter is in possession of them? It is quite clear to me that these words have been adopted for the purpose of limiting and confining the operation of the Act, and they are words which will not be found in the corresponding Statute relating to Ireland. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the words of the Irish Land Act, I would be quite willing to agree to that, and I should be perfectly ready to give up the advantages which he proposes to confer upon my countrymen by this limitation—namely, that the right shall only be enjoyed by direct members of the same family. What I ask the Government is, that they should not treat the Scotch tenants in a shabby fashion, but that they should treat them as they have already treated the Irish tenants. If the crofter has bought, or acquired, a certain improvement by lawful means, what does it matter whether it was made by a relative of his own, or a relative of somebody else? I maintain that these words would operate as a restriction which would have a very injurious effect upon the working of the Bill, and I shall, therefore, divide the Committee upon the Amendment.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely support the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, and it must be remembered that it is not Irish law, but Scotch law, that we are now dealing with. There is no right of assignment known to the Scotch law, and, in the Highlands, assignment is not known even in an illegal and unrecognized form. The fact is, that the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment is trying to induce the Committee to reconsider the decision already

      465
      arrived at by the Committee on the question of free sale. He is endeavouring to bring in, by a side issue, a principle which the Committee have already rejected. We have already decided that a tenant shall only acquire his right to the property by direct succession.
      MR. C. S. PARKER: It seems to me that the time of the Committee is being wasted upon a very small point. ["No, no!"] Yes; it is so, and what I wish to say is this—that the amount of timber in the Islands is almost infinitesimal, and so far as the crofters' holdings in the Highlands are concerned it cannot be a matter of importance. It must also be borne in mind that the landlord cannot, under any circumstances, enter upon the holding in order to cut down trees that are necessary for ornament or shelter. I do not think the point now being discussed is one upon which the Committee ought to waste further time.
      DR. CAMERON: I really think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has not clearly laid down the principle of this clause. The principle laid down in it is, that the landlord—
      "Shall cut or take timber or peats, except timber and other trees planted by the crofter or his predecessors in the holding, being of the same family, or that may be necessary for ornament or shelter."
      I do not see why he should make an exception which involves the fact that the crofter must necessarily have inherited the holding from some member of his own family. I certainly think it would be better to go a little further, and act upon the principle of the old song, "Woodman, spare that tree."
      MR. T. M. HEALY: The insertion of these words, which are supported by the Government, and resisted by the Scotch Members to a certain extent, does lay down a principle that improvements effected by the tenant do not belong to the landlord. That is the first principle involved in the clause—namely, that the landlord shall not get what he is not entitled to. I am prepared to concur to this extent with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate—that we may abandon the principle of free sale, seeing that it is not known to the Scotch law. The question, however, which is raised in this case, is not the question of free sale, but whether the landlord is to be entitled to come in
      466
      and take what does not belong to him. I do not think we ought to lose our grip of the principle that a landlord ought not to get that which he is not entitled to. If we agree that the landlord is entitled to come in and take that which does not belong to him, we should be erecting a principle of landlordism which, in all other forms of legislation, we have struck down. It, therefore, appears to me that there is a certain amount of importance attached to the insertion of these few words. I do not believe that the entire landlords of Scotland would cut down 10 trees in 10 generations, and therefore it is not a question of money; and although, in deference to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, I put aside the principle of free sale, on the ground that it has not hitherto been known to the Scotch law, there yet remains the further principle of the right of the landlord to improvements which he has not effected, and which he does not pretend to have made. Surely that is an economical consideration which ought not to be lost sight of. In Ireland, the refusal of these rights to the tenant have produced the poverty of the country. Carlyle, in his famous essay, speaking of the moisture which prevails in the Irish soil, blamed the Irish people for not planting trees upon them. But why should they plant trees which, when planted, would not belong to them, but would become the property of the landlord? So far as the tenants of Ireland are concerned, it must not be forgotten that property frequently passes in consequence of the marriages which take place; and considerations of a matrimonial character are often much stronger than those of a monetary character. Under all the circumstances, I think the Scotch Members are justified, in this case, in resisting the thin end of the wedge, and in refusing to give to the landlord that which does not belong to him.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I do not in any way acknowledge the right of the landlord to take away that which does not belong to him; but, in this case, it is just because the trees belong to the landlord, and to nobody else, even although they may have been planted by a predecessor who was not one of the family in possession of the holding, that the retention of the words in the clause is insisted upon. We give the tenant the benefit of every-

      467
      thing done by a predecessor who is a member of the same family, and also the same right to retain all trees necessary for ornament or shelter. The object of the Bill is to give a permanency of tenure much beyond any that exists in Ireland, and during that permanency or perpetuity of tenure the timber may be ripening. Then what is to be done with it? It does not belong to the tenant, unless it was planted by him, or someone whom he represents; and if these words are not inserted, the provision would cover timber planted by a tenant who had resigned the holding into the hands of the landlord, from whom the present tenant may have taken it with the trees upon it.
      MR. MACFARLANE: I wish to explain that the question raised by the Amendment is not so small or so simple as it appears. This is the first clause in the Bill in which these words appear; but when we go a little further it will be found that the same words are used in order to form a barrier to compensation. Therefore, the question at issue is not only the value of the trees in the Highlands, but a much more important principle is involved in another part of the Bill. If these words are allowed to stand in this clause, they will probably be allowed to stand in the Compensation Clause; and that is one reason why I propose to divide the Committee.
      MR. RAMSAY&c.): It has been asserted, in the course of discussion, that some of these small occupiers, when they obtained their tenaments, paid their predecessors for certain things which existed on the holding at the time it was entered upon. Now, during the period in which I was either a crofter, or a tenant farmer, or a proprietor, I never knew a single instance of that kind occur. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members say, "Oh!" but I must say that very few hon. Members, and even some Scotch Members who have been discussing the terms of this Bill, appear to know much of what they have been talking about in regard to the condition and circumstances of the population of the Western Highlands. If they did, they would never talk as they have done. It so happens that I speak from personal experience, both as an owner and as an occupier, and as one well acquainted with the circumstances and
      468
      condition of these people; and yet, when I speak of a fact which is within my own experience, some hon. Gentleman object and cry "Oh!" as if their exclamation were an argument.
      DR. CLARK: The reason why we press this Amendment, and propose to go to a division upon it, is because we are of opinion that by adopting the clause, as it stands, the Committee will sanction the principle of taking possession of other people's property, and would practically legalize spoliation and robbery. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Ramsay) says that he is well acquainted with the condition of the people of the Western Highlands. Now, during the last 20 years I have endeavoured to obtain a thorough knowledge of the people, and the customs of the people, in the Northern Higlands, and the practice there is to allow a tenant to build, and then to permit him to receive from his successor in the holding what are called "ameliorations." When the tenant gives up his holding, as a matter of practice, the successor is permitted to pay ameliorations, and by that means he comes into possession of the holding. That principle has been followed in regard to a large number of estates where there has been a transfer of title, and the successor is also rendered responsible for the debts of his predecessor. If this clause is passed, as it now stands, it will give to the landlord the improvements which were made by the predecessor in title of the persons who now occupy the holding, and the consequence will be that the occupier will have to pay twice—first, for the improvement; and, secondly, in the shape of an increased rent. It is in order to prevent this confiscation of the property of the tenant, that we are determined to divide the Committee upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane).
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 107: Majority 152.—(Div. List, No. 54.)
      SIR DONALD CURRIE SIR DONALD CURRIE (Perthshire, W.) moved an Amendment, extending the definition of the word "game" to "black game and capercailzie."
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, after the words "grouse," insert the

      469
      words "black game and capercailzie."—(Sir Donald Currie.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      DR. MCDONALD, in moving, as an Amendment, the sub-section of the clause which provides that—
      "The crofter shall not, on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors."
      to leave out "his landlord," for thy purpose of inserting "the licensing authority for the time being," said: I think, since I placed this Amendment on the Paper, the Government have placed an Amendment on the Paper which will alter the wording of this clause. I have nothing to say against the stipulation that a crofter shall not open a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or for the sale of anything; but I do not think that, in a case of this sort, where, for instance, the consent of the licensing authorities is required, why those authorities should, in this case, be ignored, and the power of refusal be placed in the hands of the landlord. I confess that this is a small point; but it shows that, in the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who drew up the Bill, the landlords are omnipotent, and that they ought to override the licensing authorities, the law of the land, and everything else. Nothing whatever is to be done without their consent. Surely this is a matter in which it is for the licensing authorities to say whether a house shall be open for the sale of intoxicating liquors or not. Therefore I shall adhere to my Amendment, to strike out the word "landlord," for the purpose of inserting "licensing authority for the time being."
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "his landlord," and insert the words "the licensing authority for the time being."—(Dr. McDonald.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): Certainly, this is one of the most familiar stipulations, not only in the letting of land by lease, but also in giving a permanent title to land by way of feu—
      470
      namely, that there should not be licensed or unlicensed premises of this description on the land. Such a restriction in a title has been upheld by the highest Court of Appeal, not so much in the interest of the landlord, as in that of the neighbouring occupiers. There can be no doubt that nothing is more disastrous than the bringing of drink shops into a community of this kind. The same restriction is very generally introduced in what we call fen charters, dealing with the letting of building land, and this has been done not only for the purpose of keeping up the character and value of the property itself, but also of preserving the character of the properties in the neighbourhood. Therefore, I put it to the Committee that, inasmuch as it is a perfectly lawful restriction which we propose, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is altogether unnecessary. The licensing authority is not, by any means, the sole judge of this matter. A person dealing with his own property has a perfect right to say on what conditions he will let it, and that one of these conditions shall be that there shall be no whisky shops opened upon it.
      MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I am rather surprised that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should have inserted this provision at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to suppose that if a crofter gets the consent of his landlord, he would be able to sell spirits and other intoxicating liquors; but that is not so, because, although both the landlord and crofter make what arrangement they like, they would be unable to open an establishment for the sale of intoxicating liquors until the occupier had obtained the consent of the licensing authority. I think it is quite unnecessary that this section should be inserted, and, as it seems to reflect on crofters generally, at the proper time I shall move the omission of the words.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I have now to propose the Amendment of which I myself have given Notice—namely, that, in line 35, to leave out the words "open any house for the sale of," in order to insert the words "sell any."

      471
      The Bill was framed originally, as has been pointed out, in order to prevent the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors; but, while striking at licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, it has been pointed out that it would not deal with that which is much worse and more prejudicial—namely, the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquors in places which are known in Scotland as shebeens. I believe it is a far greater evil, in some of these remote localities, that there should be a certain amount of shebeening, or unlicensed selling of drink, to the disadvantage of the community. The subsection, as it stands, declares that—
      "The crofter shall not, on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors;"
      and the Amendment will prohibit him from selling intoxicating liquors without the consent of his landlord.
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "open any house for the sale of."—(The Lord Advocate.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out and stand part of the Clause."
      MR. MACFARLANE: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is no law at present in Scotland to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor without a license? It appears to me that, if I am right in believing that there is such a law, the alteration proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite unnecessary.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE: My hon. Friend knows very well that there is such a law.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The law already provides a stringent punishment for selling liquor without a licence; and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate wishes to add another penalty, and that is that the tenant should forfeit his holding. I must protest, in the most emphatic manner, against such a proposal being made from the Government, Bench. No doubt, this, like other restrictive proposals, will be supported by hon. Members opposite; but that it should be proposed by the Government is an evidence of the spirit in which they are dealing with the Bill. If the
      472
      Bill passes, with all these restrictions in it, it will prove as completely delusive as the Agricultural Holdings Act. The Government have undertaken to deal with this question, and I think the Committee ought to insist upon their dealing with it in a liberal spirit. Certainly, hon. Members sitting in this quarter of the House ought to protest most earnestly against this narrow restriction of the Bill, which will render it altogether worthless. I feel strongly that it will not be worth the time and labour which have been bestowed upon it.
      SIR JOHN RAMSDEN: I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will not give way in this matter. I can assure the Committee, from my own experience, that an Amendment such as this is most essential, in order to preserve the morality of the people in these remote districts. I have had a good deal of experience in the management of Highland property, and all the years I have been there I never but once had to remove a tenant, and that was for an act which, if this Amendment be rejected, would be allowable—namely, for obtaining a licence to sell intoxicating liquors in spite of the prohibition of his landlord. I should like to point out to the Committee why it is necessary to prevent the illegal sale of liquors upon these holdings. Practically, the law as regards smuggling is not strictly enforced in these remote districts, and in the particular case to which I have referred, after I had removed the tenant, I found it still impossible to put down the illicit sale; and it was only last year that a case occurred which showed that the illicit sale of drink was going on in this very house. It was only found out owing to one of the shepherds in my employment getting liquor at that house, and on his way home falling into the river and being drowned. That was entirely in consequence of the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors. If the Committee were to pass this Bill without a very stringent clause to prevent the illicit sale of liquor, it would lead to the demoralization of these districts almost more than any other step that we could take. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will adhere to his Amendment; and I would submit to him that by in-

      473
      serting a few words he would make it much more practically useful. The words I would suggest are these—that between the words "sell" and "any" he should insert the words "or permit the sale of." The sub-section would then read thus—"The crofter shall not, on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, sell or permit the sale of any intoxicating liquors." Without such words, it is quite possible that, although he might not sell the drink himself, he might connive at another person selling it on his holding, and by that means evade the restriction of this clause, so that the demoralization of the neighbourhood would be just as bad as ever. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this addition to his Amendment.
      MR. M'LAREN: The hon. Baronet (Sir John Ramsden) must be aware that the existing law is perfectly sufficient to deal with such cases as those which he has just mentioned. It is restrictions of this kind that make the people call out against landlordism. The law at present deals with all persons who are convicted of the offence of selling intoxicating liquors in an unlicensed house, and why should the landlord have the paternal right of directing whether a man should sell anything he choose, so long as he remains within the law? At present, the tenant knows that he would subject himself to very heavy penalties, and that he might be taken before the nearest magistrate if he breaks the law. How would the hon. Baronet and his Friends like a law to be passed by this House to evict them from their estates, if they happen to commit some equally trivial offence—an offence satisfied by the payment of a small fine? My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate appears to be extremely indisposed to mitigate the rigours of this Bill, just as he is indisposed to admit any Amendment which is calculated to improve it. I cannot help saying that I regard the Bill as one which may possibly be not so much a measure for the benefit of the crofters, as a Bill for their extermination, and if Amendments such as this are persisted in, that possibility will become a certainty. The Bill bristles with restrictions on every side, and if my right hon. and learned Friend persists in exhibiting this hard-
      474
      hearted spirit with regard to the crofters, I am afraid that those who have taken any interest in these people will cease even to raise their voices in protest.
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I think that this matter has not yet been sufficiently explained, and certainly strange words have been used by more than one hon. Member. It has just been asserted, for instance, that the Government, in prosecuting this Bill, are doing everything they can against the interests of the crofters. Now, I wish the Committee to consider for a moment the position in which we stand. The Committee have, without a division, passed a clause which renders the tenant liable to be evicted from his holding if he obtains a licence to sell spirits. ["No, no!"] Certainly, that is the object of the decision which was recently arrived at; and it is now suggested that the same penalty should not follow in the case of a person, who, without going to the proper authorities to get a licence, proceeds to do the act which is forbidden even if he gets the authority of the licensing magistrate. What is the necessary result? It is this—that if any person in any township forms the idea of selling spirits, it will be more for his interest to do so as a shebeener, than to attempt to do it as a licensed dealer in accordance with the provisions of the law. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) speaks of this as a trivial offence. It is certainly new to me to hear shebeening spoken of as a trivial offence. It may be a trivial offence in this way, that it cannot be visited with a very heavy punishment; but as to its being really a trivial offence, when we consider the effect it has upon the morals of the community, I venture to say that, instead of being a trivial offence, it is a very serious and dangerous offence indeed. I hope the Committee will put aside, at once, the idea that anything that has been stated by my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, or by myself, has been intended to injure the crofters, and that they will be disposed to consider the whole matter fairly and dispassionately. I would ask, then, what good purpose they think would really be obtained by allowing these people to have the chance of shebeening without the liability of being removed from their holdings? Are there

      475
      many people who desire to get shebeens? I should think not. And do hon. Members opposite desire that, if a person persists in shebeening, he should not be removed from among the community where he is doing the greatest possible moral harm? What good purpose can be accomplished by saying that a man shall be at liberty to sell spirits without a licence, and thus to break the law, when you say that he shall not be able to do it without a licence? The Committee have already decided that, if he obtains a licence, he will be liable to be evicted from the holding. ["No, no!"] I think I have stated the matter fairly and reasonably. ["No, no!"]
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: If a man were to open a shebeen, I apprehend that the law would turn upon him very quickly, and the amount of penalties inflicted upon him would soon put him out of the holding. But what I am afraid of is, that there might be traps laid with regard to the selling of spirits. My right hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken knows the Highlands very well; and I would ask him to consider what might happen if, after a hard day's fishing, he got a glass of whisky from some of these poor people, under the guise of getting a glass of milk, and for such a trifling offence, it would be possible to make a crofter lose his holding on account of his hospitality. I must say that the existing penalties for this trivial offence are sufficiently severe, and that the offence itself is dealt with in a most effectual manner.
      MR. HUNTER: I object to the clause, on the ground that it is based on a principle of jurisprudence of a most barbarous character. It is only a few years ago that, in England, the offence called "a felony" was accompanied by the forfeiture of the goods of the person convicted; but Parliament, in its wisdom, abolished the barbarous part of the punishment—namely, the forfeiture of goods, and left the rest of the punishment intact. In this case, the Committee have properly allowed the landlord to prohibit the opening of a licensed house for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the law as it now stands imposes very severe penalties on any person who opens a house for the sale of liquor without a licence. That law is amply sufficient, and any additional
      476
      penalty is entirely uncalled for, and altogether opposed to a spirit of enlightened jurisprudence. In point of fact, you would be punishing a man twice for the very same offence. You must remember also another very important consideration. As it sometimes happens that a man is wrongfully convicted, and that he is convicted upon false evidence obtained in a manner in which it ought not to have been obtained, the result, if this Amendment is carried, may be that, owing to a wrongful conviction, a man may be deprived of his holding.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): A mere conviction would not be conclusive. The words I propose to insert are that the crofter should not, without the consent of his landlord, sell any intoxicating liquors. The landlord would be required to prove the illicit selling. There might be a conviction; but it would be perfectly open for the tenant to say—"I was wrongfully convicted."
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: With all respect for my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (the Lord Advocate), I am inclined to think that the clause is better as it stands in the Bill. I think that we are creating another offence under a measure which is not primarily a penal measure, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), when he says that shebeening is sometimes not a deliberate offence. I will give the Committee an instance of a case which occurred in a Northern county within the last few weeks. During the recent snow-storm, the factor of a noble Friend of mine in the North was benighted. I trust that I am stating the facts correctly—at any rate, I am repeating them as they were repeated to me. The gentleman to whom I refer was benighted and overtaken by the snow-storm, and he sought refuge in the house of a poor widow. He obtained refreshments there, and afterwards the widow, who had not the slightest intention of being guilty of shebeening, was convicted of that offence and fined. I am not saying a word in favour or in defence of shebeening; I look upon it as a very serious offence; but what I say is this—that the contention of hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on the other side of the House is quite correct—that the

      477
      offence is sufficiently dealt with and guarded against by the existing law. I would, therefore, submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would not be better to leave the clause as it stands in the Bill.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to understand from the Government how this clause ever came to be heard of at all? It is copied from the Irish Land Bill; but it was not in the original Bill when it was first introduced, and I would advise hon. Members to turn to the pages of Hansard which gives the debate that occurred on the 23rd of June, 1881. There, I think, they will find an explanation. When the Bill was under discussion, the present Tory Member for West Down (Lord Arthur Hill) moved this clause—
      "(6.) The tenant shall not, on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or undertake any trade or business of a dangerous or obnoxious character."—(3 Hansard, [262] 1190.)
      How was that dealt with by the Government? Mr. Law, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was then Attorney General for Ireland, said—
      "The Government could not accept the proposed Amendment; but, on the other hand, it was really a proposal that had, he submitted, already been disposed of the other night on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Rankin). The answer which was given then must, he submitted, be the answer now, that the subject was one to be dealt with by the Justices at the Licensing Sessions, who were not usually anxious to open more public-houses than there was any necessity for."—(Ibid.)
      ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but what happened? As usual on these questions, at that time, the Government had been kept for the whole night by the obstruction of the Tory Party, and an Amendment had been suggested to the effect that the tenant should not be allowed to put up any building or carry out any improvement to the annoyance of his landlord. The Government were on the point of accepting it, and had suggested the substitution of certain words; but, in the meantime, the obstruction was continued, and the Government, I am sorry to say, found themselves compelled at last to yield. This is what happened. Mr. Gladstone said—
      "He thought it very unlikely that the licensing authorities would make any misuse of their powers; but he admitted that there was
      478
      great force in the observation that what the Bill proposed to do was to protect agricultural tenants in the prosecution of agricultural pursuits, and looking at the rigid nature of the statutory leases, he thought it might be right to introduce some provision of this kind. The Government could not, however, agree to the Amendment exactly as it stood. They could not agree to the words 'dangerous or obnoxious character.'"—(Ibid. 1193.)
      That Amendment was thus successfully carried by the noble Lord the present Member for West Down, and it was the result of the most persistent obstruction ever known. I remember the night very well, and I know that we moved to report Progress, and that the discussion was kept up for hours. As I before observed, Mr. Law was then Attorney General for Ireland, and he refused with scorn to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord; but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, being desirous of saving time and out of pure weariness, ultimately found himself obliged to accept it. I may now tell the Scotch Members that, as far as this Amendment is concerned, they would never have had the clause at all if it had not been for what occurred on the night I refer to.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not disposed to enter into the reminiscences of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) as to how far the Tory Party were guilty of obstruction four years ago. It is certainly somewhat amusing to hear the virtuous indignation expressed by the hon. Gentleman at anything in the nature of obstruction. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: I return the compliment.] With regard to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and opposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), I scarcely think that my hon. Friend really apprehends the exact state of the case. What is it that the Bill proposes? It proposes to give a privilege to the smaller tenants in the Highlands which they never had before. It exacts that no landlord shall henceforth be able to enjoy the power which every landlord has enjoyed up to this time—namely, that of being able to terminate the occupation of any one of his tenants. I am not now arguing whether that is proper or not; but what are you doing now? You are not only compelling the landlord to keep the tenant, but to keep

      479
      him even if he has been guilty of an offence and has broken the law. You are compelling the landlord not only to keep the tenant who obeys the law, but to keep the tenant also who breaks the the law. That appears to me to be a restriction on the authority of the landlord which is not called for, either in the interest of the public or of the crofters themselves. I am certainly surprised at the course pursued by some hon. Members opposite, who have hitherto been in the habit of voting for the most arbitrary restrictions wherever the sale of intoxicating liquors is concerned. Many of them have advocated the most extreme Temperance doctrines; but they have taken a different course upon this question, because they think it would leave the landlord some shred of the power which he formerly possessed. They, therefore, turn round and say that, whether the tenant commits an offence or not, he should be able to exercise this right without the consent of his landlord. I maintain that this Amendment is an attempt to guard the morals of the community; and in their interests, and in their interests alone, I trust the Committee will support it.
      MR. WHITBREAD: Before the Committee come to a decision, I should like to say a word in order to explain why I hope the Government will not press this Amendment. In spite of the great authority of my right hon. and learned Friend who sits below me (the Lord Advocate), I have had a large experience in the management of Highland estates, and I very much doubt whether this proposal, if adopted, would work for the benefit of the morality of the district. I have always myself had a very great doubt as to the policy of the course which is followed by some proprietors in turning the tenant out of his holding the moment they find anything wrong is being done. I think it would be far better for the morality of the district if the landlords would endeavour to deal with these offences by the simple process of the law, and not by turning the tenant off the estate. I would submit, further, that the offence is one which, in this instance, would scarcely justify the landlord in taking such an extreme measure. I am disposed to think—although, no doubt, shebeening is a very bad thing in the Highlands—that the advantage to
      480
      morality which is to be got by evicting a crofter who is guilty of the offence, is far more than counterbalanced by the hostile feeling which would be evoked throughout the district, and the sympathy which would be meted out to the person who was found guilty of the offence. Looking at all these considerations, I am very much disposed to think that the proposal of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would, in the long run, do more harm than good.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I have never had a desire to press any matter of this sort against any considerable body of opinion in the Committee, and I only placed the Amendment upon the Paper, because it was pointed out to me that there would be a defect, resulting in mischief in the locality, unless it were inserted. But after the opinions which have been expressed, and especially after what my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has said, seeing that there is a considerable difference of opinion on the matter, I am quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR, in moving the rejection of the clause, said: If the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. J. A. Campbell) to limit the operation of the clause to those tenants whose rents amounted to £4 per annum had been carried, I should not have considered it necessary to trouble the House with any observations; but since, in my opinion, without that limitation, fixity of tenure is a privilege which is no boon whatever, I think I am justified now in raising the general question of principle. The objection to giving fixity of tenure to the smaller class of agricultural tenants is the danger that it may tend to settle them on holdings which are really too small to maintain them in anything like comfort. I do not believe that any proprietor in the Highlands is desirous, whatever may be said by hon. Members on the other side of the House, of reducing the number of people in his district below the number it is capable of supporting;

      481
      but we are bound to face the facts; and the facts are these—that in certain districts of the Highlands no amount of legerdemain in legislation, no schemes for the redistribution of land, however ingenious, will make it possible for such a district to maintain in comfort the number of people that are now upon the land. It is these districts which I should have liked to see this Bill specially deal with. I am sorry to say that I can see very small signs of an attempt to grapple with the real difficulty. The only clauses in the Bill likely to be really operative in reducing the distress and destitution in these districts are the clauses with regard to compensation, and the clauses last introduced into the Bill with regard to the fisheries. Those clauses may, I think, have some operation in reducing the indigence and poverty of the congested districts; but I do not think that the clause which is now before the Committee can possibly have that effect. On the contrary, my impression is that it will actually perpetuate the existing evils by laying down a principle that whoever is settted on the land, no matter how small his holding may be, shall have an absolute right to remain where he is to the detriment of the community generally. The line taken by the Commissioners on this question was very different from the line taken by the Government in their Bill. The Commissioners did not propose to confer fixity of tenure upon the smaller tenants. Indeed, they even went further; for in the case of the small tenants they declined to give any kind of security whatever, not from any want of sympathy with that class, but because of the paramount importance, in their opinion, of consolidating the smaller holdings. To the larger tenants they proposed to give not, indeed, fixity of tenure, but a certain measure of security—that is to say, they proposed to give them improving leases for 30 years. My own opinion is that the scheme of the Commissioners was very much better than the scheme put forward by the Government; and I should like to know what is the reason why in drawing up the Bill, which is professedly founded on the Report of the Royal Commission, they have in this matter deliberately set aside both the warning and the recommendation of the Commissioners, and introduced an entirely
      482
      different scheme of their own? It cannot be because the right hon. and learned Gentleman who drew up the Bill admits anything like a historical right of the crofter to have fixity of tenure—I mean that kind of right which, overrides considerations of expediency; because I believe, if the question were fairly looked into, it would be found that in past times the crofters had no such absolute right. Nor, again, can it be because evictions are common. Everybody admits that at the beginning of the century evictions took place which were greatly to be deplored; but during the last 50 years evictions have become exceedingly rare—so rare that I think nobody will seriously contend that the number of evictions which have taken place during that period have had any appreciable effect upon the history of the Highlands. The only reason I can see is the assumption that if you do not give these small tenants fixity of tenure you will practically deprive them of all the advantages offered by the Bill? Now, it appears to me that to state that argument in that form is really to beg the question. The real question is—are you conferring any advantage upon the small tenant by giving him fixity of tenure? Would it be of any benefit to him to settle him on a holding much too small for his requirements? It appears to me that it would be of no possible benefit to him, but that it would be merely making him a present of perpetual destitution. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) I hold to be, from what he said the other day, of the same opinion as myself; because he told us that he still adhered to the £4 limit he had endeavoured to have assigned in the Report of the Royal Commission—that is to say, that if the Government had adopted the scheme of the Royal Commission, instead of their own, the hon. Member would then have considered a £4 limit desirable. As a Member of the Royal Commission the hon. Member for Inverness-shire advocated the system of improving leases for tenants above the £4 limit, the leases to last for 30 years; below that limit he was not in favour of giving any kind of security of tenure. Then, if, in his opinion, it is not desirable to give small tenants fixity of tenure for even 30 years, how can it be desirable to give them fixity of

      483
      tenure for ever? I doubt whether the proposal of the Government will be of advantage even to the larger crofters. By giving them fixity of tenure you will remove all the flexibility that exists in the present system; and, instead of that kindness and good feeling which now subsists between the landlord and tenant, you will substitute a state of things which will place the tenant in a much harder and more disadvantageous position than he would occupy under the scheme of the Royal Commission. One incidental advantage I am prepared to admit as a result of fixity of tenure. We are all agreed that the amount of land at present held by the crofting population ought not to be reduced, except in the interest of the people themselves. Undoubtedly, fixity of tenure would secure that any land now held by the crofters should continue to be held by them. But this advantage might be obtained in another way. The Royal Commission proposed to provide, in the case of township lands, that the area of the township shall not be reduced. I should be prepared to extend those conditions, and to place all land from which crofters shall have been hereafter evicted under the control of the Land Commissioners, in order, in that way, to guard against any danger of the crofter being removed by the landlord for his own purposes. That is, I think, the only practical advantage to be derived from any system of fixity of tenure; and I am satisfied that the proposal which I have just mentioned, to place any land from which crofters have been evicted under the control of the Land Court, would be much better for the purpose than the scheme of the Government. I have argued the question from the point of view of what I consider to be of benefit to the crofters; but there is this further argument—namely, that it is desirable, if possible, to obtain the advantages which we desire to confer upon the crofters with the least amount of infringement of the rights of the proprietors. The principle now sought to be introduced for the first time into Scotland is one which has already been established in Ireland; but it is clearly undesirable to extend, without pressing necessity, a principle which was admitted to be exceptional in its application. We know that there are many hon. Members who entertain the confident expectation that the system
      484
      will not only be extended to the Highlands of Scotland, but all over that country, and, perhaps, to England as well. We ought to be careful not to make that extension easier. It is not, however, upon that ground that I argue this question, but upon the ground that I do not believe fixity of tenure would be good in the interests of the crofters themselves. I cannot, of course, expect that the Government will accept an Amendment which strikes at the root of the fundamental principle of the Bill; and as I feel it is exceedingly important that some legislative measure or other should be passed, and placed on the Statute Book, I do not propose to press my Amendment. I have only put it on the Paper by way of protest; but I would express a hope that the Government will realize how very inadequately their Bill deals with the case of the congested districts, and that they will be prepared to accept, or themselves introduce, Amendments in the Bill more calculated to remedy the distressing state of things than their present proposal of fixity of tenure.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave out Clause 1.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
      Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I have no wish to answer the statement of the hon. Member who has just sat down; but I do not think the matter should be allowed to pass without some notice being taken of the remarks of the hon. Member in regard to the question of eviction. If the hon. Member will refer to page 77 of the Appendix of the Report of the Commissioners, he will find a statement there that notices of removal—which is the nearest information we can get on the subject of evictions—between 1840 and 1883 were given and decrees of removing were got out against 6,960 heads of families. If we multiply that by five, we shall find that during the period referred to the number of persons affected by these decrees of removal amounted to 34,800, so that within 43 years decrees of removal have been had against twice the whole population of the Island of Skye. It therefore surprises me how hon. Members who have looked at the Report can possibly overlook such facts as those, and come down

      485
      and tell us there have been no evictions in the Highlands to complain of. The hon. Member has also stated that these districts have not been overrun. Then I wish to know what the people are suffering from? They are suffering from poverty, in consequence of the landlords exacting more rent than the people are able to bear, or the land is worth.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Allow me to explain. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to page 16 of the Report of the Royal Commission, he will find that the Commissioners state the evictions have done their work, and have now passed away for ever.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I would refer the hon. Member to the abstract which I have road from the Sheriff Court Records, which I certainly prefer to the statements of the Commissioners.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 (Provision for resumption by landlord).
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I wish to move, in page 2, line 43, after "harbours," to insert "piers," so that the Land Commission may, on the application of the landlord, enable him to resume the holding for the construction of piers, in addition to the other purposes specified in the clause.
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 43, after the word "harbours," insert the word "piers."—(Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald.)
      Question, "That the word 'piers' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Clause 3 (Removal of crofter for breach of conditions. 46 & 47 Vic. c. 62).
      DR. R. MCDONALD: The first part of the clause reads as follows:—
      "When one year's rent of the holding, but less than two years' rent, is due and unpaid, the crofter shall be liable to be removed in manner provided by section twenty-seven of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883."
      My opinion is that the time given there is much too short, and that it gives the
      486
      landlord power to remove the tenant much too soon. Where there are hanging gales there has always been a certain amount of rent allowed to remain unpaid even when due; and in that case, according to this section, the landlord would have the power to evict a tenant from the holding, even if he were only six months in arrear. I maintain that the failure to pay one year's rent is too little to entitle the landlord to remove the tenant, and that it should be two years. Two years would give a poor tenant a much better chance, because we know that in bad seasons, although with every wish to pay, in consequence of bad crops and a thousand other causes, the tenant, however willing he may be, may be unable to pay the rent in 12 months. Yet if he is more than 12 months in arrear he may lose his hold for ever over the holding. I think this would be most unfair to the tenant. We must look at all the necessities of the crofter, all the poverty from which he suffers, and we ought to give him a reasonable time to enable him to pay his rent. I have another Amendment later on to propose in the second paragraph of this clause; but it is not necessary that I should refer to it now. What I would submit is, that in this part of the clause, instead of being one year's rent in arrear, it should be two. I would not ask the Committee to insert anything in the Bill which could possibly injure the landlord; but it would be no disadvantage to the landlord to let the rent run for two years, for the tenant could then be evicted, and there would be plenty left on his holding with which the landlord could recoup himself for the two years' rent. If the tenant is allowed only one year, it might result in oppressive measures being sometimes taken, especially if the tenant might have made himself disagreeable to the landlord or anyone else.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, leave out the word "one," and insert the word "two."—(Dr. R. McDonald.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Clause."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): I think it is, perhaps, desirable that the clause, as it stands, should be better understood by the Committee before they

      487
      proceed further to deal with the Amendment. The proposal of the hon. Member is to substitute "two" years for "one." Now, if the word "two" is substituted for "one," the effect undoubtedly will be to disable the landlord from taking any step whatever against his tenant; he will have no power whatsoever over the property, and he will have no remedy to gain possession of his land. It must be apparent to the Committee that that is a proposal of a somewhat extreme character.
      DR. R. MCDONALD: He will simply be prevented from evicting the tenant.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND: If the Committee substitute "two" for "one," the effect will be that the landlord would have no power to regain possession of the land. His hands would be absolutely tied, so that he could take no step whatever until two full years elapsed, during which no rent payment was made at all. I think the Committee will see that the clause, as it stands, is not a severe clause on the crofter. In the first place, the landlord can do nothing in the way of removing the tenant for non-payment of rent until a full year has elapsed. In that respect the clause will put the crofters in a much more favourable position than that of any ordinary agricultural tenant in Scotland; because, by the existing law, if the tenant falls six months in arrear, the landlord can take steps to initiate proceedings with the object of removing the tenant at the end of a year. But, under the clause as it stands, I should like the Committee to understand the exact position if the crofter at the end of the year is unable to pay his rent. I will assume that the rent he is paying is a fair rent, and that it has been fixed under the Act. The tenant has, therefore, no ground for retaining the rent because it is exorbitant. After a year elapsed what will happen will be this. If the rent is not paid the crofter must either pay it, or he will, under the clause, be entitled to go to the landlord and say—"I am not able to pay now; but I will give security for the past year's rent and for this next year's rent." If the crofter does that, then the hands of the landlord are tied until the expiration of the second year. Keeping these points in view, the Committee, I think, will not approve of any step being taken to give a right to any-
      488
      one to occupy the land of the landlord without paying any rent at all. I believe that the crofters themselves do not wish to occupy the land on any other condition than the payment of a fair rent. Suppose a crofter had not paid a year's rent, and he cannot find security, what good, or what possible justice would there be in giving him another year's possession, which, under the circumstances, would necessarily imply that he would not be able to pay the second year's rent? But at the end of the year, if he can offer security, he will be entitled to remain, and cannot be removed. This is a somewhat technical clause; but I hope hon. Gentlemen will see that the arrangement is one which will work very favourably to the crofter; that he will get six months' longer credit than any other agricultural tenant in Scotland; and the only effect of adopting the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend would be that the crofter would be able to retain possession for two years without paying rent, and with no prospect of paying it.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I certainly think there is a good deal of danger in the use of the expression "arrears." I have no wish to delay the clause; but I think that at an earlier stage of the Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said that the very important question of the existing arrears would have to be dealt with somewhere. I do not see any Amendment on the Paper by which it is proposed to deal with it; and I should like to know from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate whether he proposes to deal with it in this clause, or at some subsequent stage of the Bill in some other clause?
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): The arrears to which my hon. Friend refers are arrears which have accrued before the Act would come into operation. My right hon. and learned Friend had in view arrears of another character, which will have to be dealt with, and in regard to which an Amendment has been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for East Fifeshire (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear). This clause merely deals with rent which will become past due after the Act comes into operation.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I should like the Committee to under-

      489
      stand what the real advantage is which this clause offers to the crofters. According to the Agricultural Holdings Act which was passed three years ago the tenant in Scotland gets no grace whatever. When the six months have expired, on that day the rent becomes payable, and if it is not paid the landlord can take proceedings of ejectment against the tenant. The tenant can only retain possession of the holding by giving security for the past due rent and also for the coming rent. The crofter is now to have that credit of six months refused, and the landlord will be able to take action of removal, as the crofters' rents are to be made payable yearly, immediately at the end of the year if the rent is not paid, even on the day on which it becomes due. The very next day the landlord can call him before the Sheriff and eject him, unless he is able to give security, not only for the past due rent, but for a year's rent to come. I think it only fair, therefore, that the crofters should have at least 12 months' credit. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND: Hear, hear!] But you do not give him six months' credit.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND: Yes; we do.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I am not at all clear about that. According to the Bill, the tenant is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act; and supposing that a tenant fails to pay his rent for six months the rent then becomes due, and the landlord, according to this clause, can come in and take steps either to remove the tenant or to require him to find security. I quite understand that the tenant is to have the use of the holding for 12 months. He is then to be called upon to pay, and if he is found to be in arrear his landlord can take proceedings against him. If the rent is payable half-yearly, the tenant may be said to get credit for the first six months; but if it is only payable yearly, then the crofter will receive no credit at all. I would suggest that instead of 12 months the period fixed should be a year and a-half, and in that case the crofter would only get six months' credit.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND: This is a somewhat technical matter, and I am not surprised that my hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Bar-
      490
      clay) is not quite familiar with the details of it, as they are very difficult to understand. But I think that the result which my hon. Friend contemplates is effected by the clause as it stands. The clause provides that the removal of the crofter is to be effected in the manner provided by Section 27 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883. Now, what the Agricultural Holdings Act does is this—if more than six months' rent is past due, it enables the landlord to proceed for the removal of the tenant; but it is necessary that he should apply to the Court, so that if the tenant owes six months' rent and does not pay, it is competent for the landlord, say, at the end of the month of May, to take proceedings for his removal; but the removal cannot take place until the Martinmas Term, so that, in reality, before the tenant can be removed, a year's rent will be due. Suppose the crofter enters and a year has expired, and a year's rent is due, it is then competent for the landlord to get a degree of removal for the next term, say at Martinmas; but that would be 18 months after the tenant's entry; or, in other words, he would have the benefit of 18 months' credit. I think that meets the very case my hon. Friend has suggested, and it shows that we have really adopted the proposal of my hon. Friend, which he suggests as a proper method of dealing with the question.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think the case is exactly as I stated it. A tenant for 12 months cannot be ejected until the Martinmas following; but you can eject him then, and if he is not able to provide security for the past due rent he forfeits the fixity of tenure you profess to give him in his holding. The question, after all, is that the landlord can take proceedings for the removal of the tenant whenever six months' rent is past due. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND: No.] I adhere to what I said. The tenant enters at Whitsuntide, and he remains until the following Whitsuntide, which makes 12 months' rent due; but he can be ejected at Martinmas following, so that, in reality, he gets six months' credit. And it must not be forgotten that the landlord has the security of the crop upon the ground for the due payment of the rent. My own opinion is that the crofter should have 18 months instead of 12 months,

      491
      and the landlord would then only be giving him six months' credit after the first 12 months' rent became due.
      MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The clause, as it stands, certainly confers a very substantial advantage upon the crofter. Read in conjunction with the rent, it has additional advantages. In the first place, if it stood alone, it would defer the possibility of an eviction as has been explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland; but, in the second place, it is made to apply not to the rack-rent or to a rent under contract, but to the rent which the tenant can have settled at his own pleasure, by applying to the Land Commission. I think it is important the Committee should observe that this section does not apply to the question of arrears at all, because the word rent in the 3rd section is interpreted by Clause 4, and Clause 4 provides that—
      "The rent payable, as one of the statutory conditions, shall be the present rent, that is to say, the yearly rent, including money, and any prestations other than money, payable for the year current at the passing of the Act unless and until the present rent is altered in manner provided by the Act."
      The rent, accordingly, is the existing rent, as long the crofter does not choose to go to the Land Court. Therefore, the immunity incurred by the crofter is a double one—namely, that of having the period for the payment of his rent postponed, and that he can have the rent itself settled by the Court.
      MR. CHANCE: In order to make the matter clear, I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland to add the words "accruing due" after the word "holding" in line 10 of the clause. The clause ought to read—
      "When one year's rent of the holding, accruing due after the passing of this Act, but less than two years' rent is due and unpaid, the crofter shall be liable to be removed."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): I do not think there is any ambiguity about the matter. Being in arrear means the rent past due, and the meaning of the term rent is settled by a succeeding clause. I do not think there can be any ambiguity whatever about the clause as it stands.
      DR. R. MCDONALD: I have no desire to press the Amendment; but am quite ready to
      492
      withdraw it in favour of one which will come on later, and which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark).
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. M'CULLOCH: I have now to move to amend the clause by striking out all the proposed provisions for the manner of removal in order to insert the following words:—
      "To provide that the tenant should be removed summarily unless, on demand, he either tenders payment of, or finds security for, the arrears of rent. But, provided that such removal shall in no way affect the outgoing or compensation for improvements to which in law or practice he otherwise could lay claim."
      The system of eviction which prevails in Scotland is based on a very old Act—the Act of Sederunt of 1756. Now, it is important to bear in mind that this is not an Act of the British Parliament, but an Act passed in Session by the Judges of the Supreme Court of Scotland; and the Lord Advocate, I maintain, must know that it is highly unconstitutional, and unfit to be adopted as the basis of any legislation in the year 1886. Moreover, this Act recites that it was passed in the interests of agriculture, and the Judges sheltered the operation of the Act under the pretended plea of a benefit to agriculture; but it came out after that the Judges were afraid the landlords would not get their rent, and enacted that when one year's rent was due and unpaid the Judge Ordinary could call on the tenant to find security, not only for the arrears of rent, but for five years' rent in addition, and if the tenant failed to do so he could be removed without compensation. When two years' rent was unpaid, no amount of tender of payment or of security could stay eviction, and the tenant could be summarily evicted. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, however, reduced the term; but it only gives the tenant the benefit of compensation, without any security against removal. I would ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate what principle of justice there is in asking anyone to find security for a payment which has never become due, because the proposal contained in this clause is not only that he should give security for the payment of arrears, but for one year's rent in addition. Upon what principle of justice

      493
      is the tenant to give any such security? I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to show that there is such a penal enactment against any class of the community. This Bill allows eviction when one year's rent remains unpaid, unless the tenant finds security for it and for another year's rent in addition; and if there are two years' rent on the holding due and unpaid, then the tenant can he evicted. Further, if he cannot find the security, then he will lose all the outgoings and compensation which are due to him. You say that—
      "He is liable to be removed in the manner provided by the fourth section of the Act of Sederunt anent Removing of the fourteenth day of December, one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six;"
      and that Act of Sederunt decidedly deprives a tenant, who is removed under these circumstances, of all the advantages of compensation. I think it is quite evident that if there is any intention to do justice to the crofters, they should not be required to give security for rent which is not already due; and it is on that ground that I propose the Amendment, and call on all those who have any feeling of justice for the crofters to support it.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "but less than two years' rent."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE SOLTCITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): It is only right, in the first place, that I should correct a misapprehension under which my hon. Friend is labouring—namely, that the effect of the clause, as it stands, would be to remove the tenant at the end of two years, if he has not paid his rent, without giving him the benefit of his improvements. My hon. Friend has overlooked the provisions of Clause 8, which expressly provide that when the crofter renounces his tenancy, or is removed from his holding, he should be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvements. Undoubtedly, the Bill provides that he shall only be removed on getting all the compensation which is due to an outgoing tenant, just the same as if he renounced his tenancy and were going away of his own accord. My hon. Friend says it is a great anomaly that a person who owes to his
      494
      landlord a certain sum of money should be required to find security, not only for what is past due, but for something which is to become due. But my hon. Friend has not observed anything in the Bill which requires the crofter to do that. The clause simply gives a privilege which is to apply in the case of a man who owes an arrear of rent, and says that he is unable to pay it. If he cannot pay it, of course the alternative is either that he must hold the landlord's land without paying rent for it, or he must do something to find reasonable security that he will not only pay what is past due, but that he will pay in the future. Instead of suffering the penalty of being evicted for nonpayment of rent, he is offered the alternative of finding security for the past year and for the ensuing year. He is then entitled to say to his landlord—"I cannot pay the rent past due; but I have a statutory right to remain on the holding for another year." It is impossible to think that that can be otherwise than beneficial and highly favourable to the interests of the crofters. My hon. Friend has entered into a historical question in regard to the Act of Sederunt of 1756. I do not think that we should advance very much the consideration of the Bill by going into the historical question which my hon. Friend has raised. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it was rather a high-handed proceeding on the part of the Court of Session at the time it was passed; but its provisions have been recognized as being so beneficial in the way of clearing up the state of the law at the time as regarded mere procedure, that they have, by universal consent, accorded the same authority as if passed by public Statute. I hope that the consideration of the clause will not be complicated by entering into the question in regard to which I know that many of my friends in Scotland entertain strong opinions.
      MR. CHANCE: I cannot altogether follow the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox, Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch). He proposes to substitute for the period of arrears which shall render a crofter liable to be removed two years instead of one; but I see that the last paragraph of the clause provides that—
      "When two years' rent of the holding is due and unpaid, or when the crofter has broken any

      495
      of the other statutory conditions, he shall forfeit his tenancy, and shall be liable to be removed in manner provided by the fourth section of the Act of Sederunt anent Removing of the fourteenth day of December, one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six."
      Now, if hon. Members will take the 8th clause of the Bill, they will find a provision that when a crofter renounces his tenancy, or is removed from his holding, he shall be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvements, provided that the improvements are suitable to the holding; and even in this 3rd clause the clearest possible distinction is drawn between the term "removal" and the term "forfeit." If the term "forfeit" means anything, it means that the tenant is to be bundled out. If only one year's rent is due, he is only liable to be removed; but the last part of the clause distinctly declares that if he is two years' rent in arrear he is to forfeit his holding. Now, in the Irish Land Act of 1881 provision was made that the tenant should be compensated for improvements on his removal, no matter what the circumstances were which led to the removal; and I do not see why there should not be a similar provision here.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): In reply to the objection which has been raised by the hon. Member, I may say that no landlord will have the power of displacing a tenant without first giving a formal notice of removal; and Clause 8 makes it perfectly clear that he will be compensated in case of removal for any permanent improvements he may have effected.
      MR. CHANCE: In regard to the question now before the Committee—namely, the desirability of substituting two years for one, I admit at once that if there are arrears of less than two years the tenant would get the benefit of compensation for permanent improvements; but what I fear is that as the Bill is now worded, if two years' rent are due and unpaid, the crofter in arrear might be compelled to forfeit the holding. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Read line 16.]—
      "Shall forfeit his tenancy, and shall be liable to be removed in manner provided by the fourth section of the Act of Sederunt anent Removing of the fourteenth day of December, one thousand seven hundred and fifty-six."
      But, in the event of the forfeiture of his
      496
      tenancy, I think it is as clear as daylight that he would not get the benefit of his improvements.
      MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: As this is a question of construction, I think it is right that I should, as a lawyer, affirm the reading of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General—namely, that what is to be forfeited under this clause is the tenancy, and that what is not to be forfeited is the compensation. The penalty under this clause of non-payment of rent is the forfeiture of the tenancy or the liability to be removed; and if a man is removed by Clause 8 he gets compensation.
      MR. M'CULLOCH: What is the meaning of the reference in the clause to the Act of Sederunt of 1756, under which both outgoings and compensation are forfeited?
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): What that Act does is merely to prescribe the manner in which the process of removal is to be carried out. The Act of Sederunt substituted for a much more elaborate and technical proceeding before the Supreme Court a simple process of removal before a Judge Ordinary. The reference to the old Act simply supplies the machinery which is laid down there, instead of instituting another process. I think the hon. Member would be conferring a left-handed benefit on the crofters if he were to strike out the reference to the Act of Sederunt.
      MR. M'CULLOCH: I am satisfied with the explanation.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      DR. CLARK: The Amendment which I rise to move is not proposed for the purpose of enabling a crofter who cannot pay his rent to remain in his holding, but to meet the case of a crofter who is unable to pay owing to innocent misfortune. We ask that the question shall come before the Court, and that by the consent of the Court only the crofter shall be removed, and that the matter shall not be left in the hands of the landlord or his factor. We prefer that no eviction shall take place, except by consent of the Court, and that the Court which considers the case should be a Court of Equity.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after "crofter," insert "by consent of the Court."—(Dr. Clark.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): It is quite impossible that we can assent to the introduction of these words, which we believe would be not only mischievous, but productive of no benefit at all to the crofter. There never can be any case of removal which does not involve an application to the Court; because, under all circumstances, the person sought to be removed would have the right of applying to the Court. If the crofter is put in his position at a fair rent, it is not right surely to say that the landlord, without the consent of the Court, should not have the right to recover possession of his land, the crofter not being able to pay the rent or give security.
      Question put, and negatived.
      DR. R. MCDONALD: I propose not to move the Amendment with regard to arrears which stands in my name, because I understand that some arrangement will be made with regard to arrears by the Government. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will explain what the arrangement is.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member to Clause 6, which, with, perhaps, some necessary modification, will in substance be adopted, subject to the decision of the Committee.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 4 (Present rent).
      DR. CLARK: I ask, by the Amendment I propose to move, that the words "including money and any prestations other than money" may be omitted from this clause. The object of the Amendment is to prevent there being any personal service, prestations, or the like, included in the rent payable as one of the statutory conditions. It is a very hard thing for a crofter who wants to work his own croft to have to work on the farm of a large tacksman, and render other feudal duties; and my wish is to prevent his having to do anything but pay the rent.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 22, to leave out from "including" to "money," in line 24, inclusive.—(Dr. Clark.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): This portion of the clause simply deals with the present rent. It merely says that the prestations on the part of the tenant shall be included in the rent payable as one of the statutory conditions. Supposing that the rent now due by a crofter is partly in respect of money and partly in respect of service, the Committee will see that in such case it would be impossible for us to assent to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 5 (Rent altered by agreement).
      MR. BAIRD: I rise to move the Amendment to this clause which stands in my name, with the idea of getting the opinion of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate as to whether the clause would not be made clearer to the non-legal mind by inserting the words which I propose.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 30, after "and," to leave out to end of line 31 and insert, "no rent shall have been fixed by the Land Commission."—(Mr. Baird.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I feel the force of the criticism suggested by this Amendment, which I am bound to say is a sound criticism. I agree that it is necessary to insert some words to show clearly that one rent is to be substituted for another; and, therefore, we propose to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member with the addition of some words which will make it more clear. We propose to insert after "no" the word "different," and at the end of the hon. Member's Amendment to add, "upon the application of the landlord or of the crofter;" that, we think, will make the matter perfectly clear.
      Amendments proposed to the proposed Amendment,
      After the word "no" to insert the word "different," and at the end to add the words "upon application of the landlord or of the crofter."—(The Lord Advocate.)
      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed, to.
      Amendment, as amended, agreed, to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 6 (Fixed rent).
      DR. CLARK: The next Amendment in my name is intended to prevent the rack-renting of an incoming tenant, either by the crofter or the landlord. There are two rents—the arbitration rent and the competition rent. As the clause at present stands, the incoming tenant will derive no benefit from the Bill, because he would be rack-rented.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 33, after "crofter," insert "or anyone about to become the tenant of a crofter's holding."—(Dr. Clark.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)&c.): These words seem to me to be altogether inadmissible, because they would make the Bill applicable to the crofter who entered into a new arrangement with the landlord. It is out of the question that the new crofter should, perhaps upon terms voluntarily arranged between himself and the landlord, have the power to go the next day into the Land Court for the purpose of having a fair rent fixed; that, I think, would be hardly satisfactory.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. MARK STEWART: I wish to make it clear that the agents of the parties may be heard by the Commissioners as well as the principals. I am aware that under the Scotch law the word "parties" would embrace agents and others who represent those who are parties to the suit; but it may be supposed that the Commissioners will not all be lawyers, and it is possible, therefore, that the Court may not at all times be aware of the significance and meaning of the word "parties." I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will admit these words,
      500
      which will have no other effect than to make the clause clearer than it is at present.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 36, after the word "parties," insert the words "or their duly accredited agents."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. These words are altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as the term "parties" is perfectly well understood to include agents.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Amendment I propose to move affects the definition of fair rents, and the question is one of serious importance. I regret that the expressions in the clause as it stands in the Bill are insufficient and misleading; and I propose to substitute for such definition words which I conceive will express more adequately the duty of the Land Commission in the work they will have to undertake. I desire to say, at the outset, that my argument proceeds necessarily on the assumption that this statutory body is to fix what it considers to be a proper rent for the holding. What is the fair rent that ought to be fixed? I take it that it is that rent which a solvent tenant would pay for the holding as it stands; and, accordingly, the question which has to be determined by the Land Commission is really one of valuation. They have to look at the subject, measure its worth, and fix upon that figure as the rent to be paid in future—that is, a sum which the tenant can afford to pay as rent. I ought to add to that one qualification relating to compensation for improvements, because I accede to the view that you are not to take the fair rent—the worth of the subject as it stands—without taking into account the proportion, if any, by which the value has been created by the improvements of the tenant. I am not certain that there is a difference of opinion between the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and myself on that point; but I am very anxious to hear in the sequel whether there is or not. I should like to know whether he assents to the view that, subject to the ascer-

      501
      tainment of improvements made by the tenant, the problem is to find out what is the amount which a solvent tenant can afford for rent in respect of a particular holding? If that is not the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, then I want to know by how much less is the rent to be fixed, or what is the ultimate deduction to be made; if that is not his view, then I say frankly that I dissent from the proposal of the Government. But I think the difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself is more as to the method of determining what is the proper rent; and I think the clause withdraws the attention of the Land Commission too much from the value of the holding to a number of extraneous and collateral circumstances. If that be the case, then I believe that the Committee will feel with me that that the clause is not fitly framed in order to the attainment of the result which we all desire. I shall point out words to which I take exception. I think it a misfortune that the Commission is directed by the words here used to consider all the "circumstances of the case, holding, and district." I must say that I assume that any valuer, apart from this Act, would necessarily take into consideration the circumstances of the holding and district; he would take into consideration not merely the quality of the soil, but those circumstances which enable a tenant to pay a particular rent—that is to say, the distance from markets, communications, &c. Those, Sir, are circumstances of the holding; but the clause says that the Commissioners are to take into account something which is apparently different from that—"the circumstances of the case;" and I want to know what those circumstances are? Is there a different set of circumstances; are the circumstances of the case different and distinct from the circumstances of the holding? The Committee will observe that the words "circumstances of the case" have a certain latitude, and are so extremely popular that they may, even in the view of a Court of Law, render legitimate an inquiry into circumstances which have little or no bearing upon the value of the holding; and that observation becomes more cogent, if I may say so, when it is considered that the Court is to consist of two laymen and one lawyer, who are to interpret and apply the sec-
      502
      tion. From the latitude usually given to the words, I fear that the Commissioners might think themselves justified in considering not only the question of the value of the holding, but the ability of the tenant to occupy and pay for it; it might even be held to justify an inquiry as to whether the landlord had need of the rent, and a number of considerations which are highly illegitimate; whereas, when we are appointing a Commission to novel and unprecedented work, there ought, I think to be no words of a misleading character put into the clause intended to guide them in coming to a determination. Another point should be kept in view. This fair rent is a permanency for 15 years, and accordingly it will be completely out of the question, if justice is to be done, that attention should be paid to transient considerations. What, then, are the circumstances of the case? We observe that this rent is not to bind merely the existing tenant, but it is to bind his heirs, and that for a period of 15 years. I think the duty of the Legislature should be to give fixed instructions to the Commission from which they cannot hold aloof; and I am of opinion that the Commission should determine what is the rent at which, one year with another, the holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year. I should like to anticipate one of the answers which may be made to my proposal, and that is that the words I am taking objection to are the words of the Irish Land Act. Although that is an answer, I do not consider it a good answer; because the condition and circumstances of the tenants in the two cases of Ireland and Scotland are totally different. The rights of the Irish tenants in their holdings are of a character to which those in the case of Scotland have no analogy. My second answer to the expected argument in support of the clause is, that the working of the Irish Land Act has not been such as to satisfy any of the parties concerned; and if it be true that we should not adopt a misleading precedent, then we should not adopt the phraseology of the Irish Act. Another thing is said, and that is that we are to trust to the Land Commission. Certainly, when this measure has become the law of the land I shall be willing to do so; but, before giving the Land Commission carte blanche to con-

      503
      sider all the circumstances of the case, and before withholding from them a plain direction as to what is the fair rent, I should like to know a little more about its constitution. I think we are entitled to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman something more on that subject. All we know now is, that one of the members of the Commission is to be an advocate of 10 years' standing. Well, Sir, I need hardly say that I have a great respect for advocates of 10 years' standing; but I do not find in that an absolute guarantee which would incline me to throw the reins upon the neck of a tribunal presided over even by so august a personage. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are advocates of 10 years' standing and advocates of 10 years' standing, and it is most important for us to know that means are to be taken to insure that the Commission is a strong one. I should be prepared to abstain from pressing for too sharp a definition of "fair rent" if we were abundantly satisfied as to the composition of the Land Commission. Unless the Land Commission is an especially strong one there will be, I fear, under the clause as it now stands, an inclination to wander into such considerations as what a good or bad, popular or unpopular, landlord might do for his tenants; and that, I submit, is not the duty of a Body constituted like this. The Commissioners should proceed in the performance of this duty on plain and intelligent principles. I have said that the Government might give us some assurances upon this subject; but I need hardly add that I will not press them upon a question which will necessarily arise at a later stage of the Bill. Still, I think we are fairly entitled to know something about the arrangements which will be made for the constitution of the tribunal—or, rather, administering Body—which will be intrusted with this matter.
      DR. CLARK: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. I should like to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Robertson) can, in moving an Amendment to a clause, discuss other clauses of the Bill?
      THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): It appears to me there is a relation between Clause 6 and the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I fear, Sir, that the whole point of my argument has been missed by the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark). I say that the permissibility of the words of the section is partly to be determined by the question—Who are those who are to constitute the Commission? I hope the Committee will understand that my Amendments are not proposed in any spirit of hostility to the operation of this system. On the contrary, I think the one thing to be guarded against is a roving Commission with no settled ideas, perplexing people, throwing doubts, and raising, it may be, vain expectations in the minds of one party or the other—a Commission, above all, which would not have before it its sailing directions in the shape of plain, intelligible definitions of fair rent. I am most anxious to know from the Government two things. In the first place, I want to know whether, upon principle, they dissent from the explanation of "fair rent" which I have put on the Paper; if they do, I am entitled to know wherein, and to what extent, do they differ; and, secondly, I want to know, in a sufficiently general manner, what is to be the composition of the Land Commission which is to administer this very difficult clause?
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, after "parties," leave out to before "may" in line 40."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'and considering all the circumstances of the case,' stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): There can be no doubt of the importance of the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson); and it is perfectly reasonable, I think, that the discussion should now be taken, as he proposes, not only on the particular Amendment which he has moved, but also upon the one that stands further down the Paper in his name, by which he makes a suggestion of a very different character, as to what the rule for determining the rent shall be; because, no doubt, the proposal to strike out the Government's direction and the proposal to substitute the hon. and learned Gentleman's direction must be considered together. But before I deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amend-

      505
      ment, let me say a word or two upon another question into which my hon. and learned Friend entered quite legitimately—namely, the question of the composition of the Land Commission. Now, I entirely agree with him that the Commission should be a thoroughly strong Commission, and a Commission which shall be so constituted as to inspire confidence in all the very numerous persons who will be interested in its administration. I, of course, am not in a position at this moment to mention the names of the persons, for a very obvious reason. I do not know whether I should be revealing a secret in saying that we are not in a position to mention the names of the persons who will constitute the Commission, because these persons have not yet been fixed upon. I need scarcely say that it will be a most difficult matter to select persons possessing the requisite qualifications. That can only be done after endeavouring to get the best information that can be obtained from all parts of Scotland as to the class of persons who would be likely to be best qualified for Commissioners, particularly for the two lay Commissioners. The selection of the Commissioners is an extremely delicate duty, no doubt; but I think the Committee will be, for the present, at all events, indisposed to delay the clause on that account—at least, we on the part of the Government are fairly entitled to discuss this clause—and, indeed, every other clause—on the assumption that the Commission will be a properly and duly constituted Commission. Having said this, and fully appreciating the great delicacy and the great importance of the duties which will be cast upon the Commission, I shall now, very shortly, deal with my hon. and learned Friend's proposal, firstly, to strike out our instruction to the Commission, and, secondly, to substitute his own instruction. He was quite right in anticipating that one answer we should make in regard to our instruction—for such it is—is that it was inserted, and, I recollect very well, inserted after much discussion, in the Irish Land Act. Here are the words—the words which my hon. and learned Friend criticized so much—"considering all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district." Now, the words at the end of Sub-section (1) of Clause 8 of the Irish Act are—
      506
      "Considering all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, may determine what is such fair rent."
      Those words were adopted after very full discussion, and for reasons which I shall not be justified in wearying the Committee by repeating now. Any hon. Gentleman who desires to see them stated in detail can do so by perusing the volumes of Hansard. I must, however, indicate why it appears to us that it is wise to introduce some such instruction. I do not say that the mere fact of such an instruction having been introduced into an Act similar or identical in purpose is conclusive; but I do say it goes a long way to justify its insertion in this Bill; because when Parliament, so very recently as five years ago, after an exceedingly full discussion, thought that this was a wise and proper instruction, some respect should be paid to this decision, unless it can be shown, either that it was a wrong instruction, or that it has broken down in its working, or that it is inappropriate, owing to some difference in the conditions of the persons affected or the subjects dealt with by the two pieces of legislation. Now, my hon. and learned Friend anticipated this observation, and he said that the circumstances of the Irish small tenants and those of the Scotch crofter tenants are different, and he referred to some differences which have already been discussed during the progress of this Bill. There has been a difference pointed out in the law of assignment, and we resisted free sale upon that and other grounds; but I am not aware that there has been any difference pointed out between the two groups of tenants, in so far as the question of fair rent is concerned. I know of no reason why an instruction which would be appropriate to those who were to determine what was fair rent for the Irish small tenants should not also be an appropriate instruction to those who have the same duty to perform in Scotland. I believe there is a great deal of similarity in many respects between the Irish small tenants and the Scotch crofters. There is a very vast difference between the condition of the Irish small tenant and what I may call the normal tenant of Scotland, who holds under perfectly free contract, and under social and economic conditions altogether different from those which obtain in the

      507
      Highlands. But there is, to begin with, a similarity of race between the crofters in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland and the Irish; a great deal of similarity in the conditions by which they are surrounded; their habits of life are similar; their poverty is similar; their pursuits are very similar; and their climate is very similar. In short, there is a great deal of similarity between the conditions that surround the two peoples; if it had not been for the great similarity in these respects I am not sure that we should have proposed this Bill. We do not propose the Bill for Scotland generally; because we think there are certain conditions existing in the Highlands which make it right and proper there, although it would not be right and proper elsewhere, and these conditions are very analogous and similar to those existing amongst the small tenants of Ireland. My hon. and learned Friend asks, and quite rightly, why should we give this instruction? Well, in regard to that I have to say, in the first place, that if you sent persons about with a roving Commission to fix fair rents, and gave them no kind of hint as to what they were to do, they might be all at large—all at sea; they might think they should fix rents upon some general principle without regard to the particular circumstances. One man might say that he thought the rent of the whole county or parish should be 30 s. an acre. They might have general views of that kind; and, therefore, it is appropriate now, as it was in 1881, to direct the Commission not to do things en bloc, but to have regard to the circumstances surrounding the particular case which they had in hand. And so the Commission is told to have regard to the "circumstances of the case, holding, and district." Well, my hon. and learned Friend gave instances which he thought might fall under the circumstances of the case; but I do not think that any valuer would include them in that category. My hon. and learned Friend gave, as the first instance, the personal inability of the particular tenant to pay, and the necessity, the wealth, or the poverty of the landlord. These are certainly not circumstances which appear to me as right to take into consideration. But, suppose a given rent was proposed to be fixed for a holding, and that the tenant said it was too high, and proved that the
      508
      three tenants who had been sitting before him at that rent had become bankrupt. There is a circumstance of the case. If experience proved that the rent could not be paid, I say it would be a very pertinent consideration. Of course, if there had been any improvidence on the part of the former tenants that would also be considered. Well, then, suppose one holding was near a steamboat quay and another 10 miles inland. The Commissioners would consider how the holdings were situated, their distance from market, their facilities for bringing materials to and from, and all the other things which make one holding more valuable than another. Then there are the circumstances of the district. There are districts and districts. The climate forms one important element in the consideration and the means of communication another. In short, the object of such an instruction as we propose is practically to indicate to the Commissioners that they shall specialize their investigations, so that they shall do justice upon a review of the circumstances affecting the particular place. Well, then, it is quite true that we have added something which I did not understand my hon. and learned Friend to object to; because there is something very like it in his own alternative Amendment. It will be seen that we use the word "particularly." We say—
      "And particularly after taking into consideration any permanent improvements on the holding which may have been executed by the crofter or his predecessor in the same family."
      Now, Sir, I say there is a circumstance of the case. These words are used to prevent the crofter from being rented on his own improvements. This provision is to lead to such things as this being considered—Suppose that the holding as it stands is worth a particular figure—say, £6 a-year—it would then be legitimate for the crofter to say—"That is all very well; that croft is worth £6 as it now stands; but it would only be worth £3 if it were not for the improvements that I and my predecessors in my family have made." There is a circumstance of the case, and I apprehend that, as to the justice of inquiring into such a circumstance, there will be no question. So I venture to submit it is right and proper that there should be instructions if you like, or, if you prefer it, hints or suggestions, which are likely to lead to a

      509
      careful consideration by the Commis-missioners of the particulars affecting the holding they have to value, and that these words should stand here as they have stood in other places. Probably the propriety of this instruction may be best illustrated by taking into view the alternative instruction that my hon. and learned Friend proposes. He proposes to substitute for our instruction this—
      "The fair rent shall be the rent at which one year with another such holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year;"
      and then his instruction goes on to refer to permanent improvements. Now, Sir, I am perfectly aware that these words are taken from an Act with which we are all familiar—namely, the Lands Valuation Act of 1854. It is quite true that that Act provides a convenient mode of defining value. For many purposes—and in particular for purposes of rating—it is convenient; but I submit to the Committee that the words the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes might not only be inconvenient words, but misleading words, as applied to the duty which the Land Commission may have to perform. One of the great evils in the Highlands—in those parts of the Highlands which will be affected by this Bill—as in Ireland, is the congestion or overcrowding of the population in particular places and the great desire to possess land. Now, if my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were accepted there would be a direction to the Commissioners which I may venture to paraphrase thus—"Never mind what you think the real value is, whether the man can live or thrive upon the land, either by working it alone, or with any other labour he may get, either on shore or by fishing; if you think somebody can be got to give a certain figure, fix that as the rent." I admit that, when you are dealing with competition under normal conditions, it is probably the fairest test of value; but it does appear to me that, when dealing with an impoverished population, to fix the rent upon the basis of what might be offered, irrespective of whether the people could pay it or not, might lead to great injustice, and might result in a rent being fixed which would not be a fair rent, but an unfair rent—a rent which the tenant, with all he could get out of the land, and what he could get
      510
      from fishing or some other industry, never could pay. I say that to give an instruction like that would be wrong. I will give the Committee another illustration of how it appears to me this direction of my hon. and learned Friend might work. His suggestion is that—
      "The fair rent shall be the rent at which, one year with another, such holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year."
      Well, there are several competitors who compete for land in the Highlands besides the ordinary inhabitants. Suppose the tenant of a neighbouring deer forest wanted to square his marches, and said—"This forest would be worth another £1,000 a-year if I could get such and such a bit of land," he might, under the instruction of the hon. and learned Gentleman, get land wanted by the crofter; it might be said that the price offered was the price the land would reasonably fetch. Suppose a landlord wanted certain land with which to improve his sheep farm, there might be a fancy value put upon the land, a value having no relation whatever to human habitation, or occupation, or cultivation. This is no fanciful illustration. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman desires to produce any such result as I have described; but when you use the words—
      "The fair rent shall be the rent at which, one year with another, such holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year,"
      what is to exclude the competition of the man who wants to square his deer forest? I submit that it would not be right, for reasons which, I believe, will commend themselves to the judgment and conscience of the Committee, to give a direction which would bring in competition of the kind I have indicated. I could not help hearing the remark of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mark Stewart) to my hon. and learned Friend, to the effect that the word "reasonably" appears in the Amendment. It is true the Amendment does contain the word "reasonably;" but pray notice to what the word is attached. It is not attached to the rent, but to the expectation of getting it. It is not reasonable rent. I may say that when the Irish Land Bill was passing through the House an hon. Friend of mine mentioned a case where, upon an estate with which he

      511
      was acquainted, instructions had been given to see that the rents were fair rents. On the whole, the rents were found to be fair—indeed, below the valuation; but in one or two cases they were found to be remarkably above the valuation. This was not intended, and the agent was asked to explain why it was so. He said—"Well, the tenant died; he had three sons, all of whom wanted the holding—I could do nothing else but let them compete for it, and they bid it up to nearly twice its value." Now, that is the kind of thing which might happen in the Highlands; that is competition rent; but it is not fair rent. I admit that the instruction of my hon. and learned Friend would be a very proper instruction if applied to Scotland generally, or to places where you have substantial tenants dealing in the open market; but it might be a most dangerous instruction when you are dealing with this very peculiar kind of property. I hope I have given good reasons for the retention of our own clause and the rejection of the Amendment, and I may conclude by adding that while we are in a position to point to the instruction given in the Irish Act of 1881 as similar to ours, my hon. and learned Friend is not in a position to point to any instruction given in that Act, such as he proposes. If my hon. and learned Friend's instruction was an appropriate one, why was it not given by Parliament in 1881? I do believe that one important object which Parliament had in view in fencing and guarding the wording of the clause of the Irish Act of 1881 was the prevention of what might be unreasonable and irrational competition rents being fixed—rents which no man would be able to pay and thrive. I think that it is wise to take the discussion upon my hon. and learned Friend's two Amendments at the same time, and I hope that the Committee will see its way to support the clause as it stands.
      MR. CHANCE: I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) is very objectionable, and not warranted by anything that appears in the Irish Land Act. But the clause, as it stands at present, is in my opinion, equally objectionable, although I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord
      512
      Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) every credit for his intention to guard against the tenant being taxed for his own improvements. The Irish Land Act has been often cited in the course of the debate. Although the words of that Act are clear, the landlords' contention, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," is, that in fixing fair rent you must first of all fix the value of the unimproved holding, and that then the improvements must be considered in the light of works done by a partnership to which the tenant brought labour and capital and the landlord contributed some unknown quantity which the Court of Appeal called the improvability of the soil. By that method, under words which are almost similar to those in this Bill, the tenant was taxed for his own improvements.
      MR. KIMBER: I think it is well to draw attention to the fact that, in the first place, we are constituting a tribunal to consider all the circumstances of the case. Upon the face of it that is all very well; but then the particular instruction which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) proposes to give to the tribunal is an instruction entirely in favour of one of the parties to the cause. When you instruct the tribunal, as you do by this clause, to take into consideration all the circumstances in favour of the tenants, you impliedly direct them to exclude any circumstances which may exist in favour of the other parties. If credit, so to speak, is to be given to the tenant for any improvements he may have made, surely, when the question of fixing a fair rent is taken into consideration, there should, per contra, be taken into consideration any value which the landlord may have given the tenant towards the improvements. Again, are you to exclude from consideration any dilapidations which may have been permitted by the tenant? If you are to give credit to the tenant for any improvements he has made on the one side, surely on the other side he ought to be debited for what he has left undone. But there is another difficulty in which you are landed by this particularization. It directs the tribunal to take into consideration what has been done by the tenant's relatives, notwithstanding that

      513
      the value of such improvements may have been allowed for years before. I have looked through the Bill to see whether there is any provision in the Act that the power proposed to be given to the landlord and crofter to apply to the Land Commission is one which can be exercised from time to time, and for the particularization of what the tribunal is to consider in considering the question of rent, but I cannot discover either one or the other. I contend that we ought to instruct the tribunal what are the improvements which are to be taken into consideration, and within what period they must have been made. Now, Sir, I come to a question of principle, and, if I understand rightly, a question of principle between the two Front Benches, and that is, what is to be the criterion of value? Is the rent to be fixed by the value of the land, or not? Is the owner to have the full value of his land, or is he not? The value of a thing is the amount it will fetch in the market; but if the Government supersede competition, and close the market, they will be attempting to coerce the natural law of supply and demand, and there will be no end to such a principle. Now, Sir, I do not see a single word from beginning to end of the Bill to the effect that the owner shall have the value of his land in the shape of rent, or even the value to the crofter. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, as I understood him, said that the rent should be fixed by reference to the capacity of the crofter to pay.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE: I said exactly the opposite as to the individual.
      MR. KIMBER: Then I must have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Cries of "Divide!"] I trespass very little upon the attention of the House, and when I do, I think hon. Members will admit that I endeavour to economize time as much as possible. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument to be that the value of a croft to a rich neighbour might be more than the crofter could pay; but what a particular crofter could pay is nothing at all as to the value of the land. It ought to be the value which any good tenant who would use the land would pay; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the particular crofter who might be engaged in fishing, or other employment, and,
      514
      therefore, might not be able to pay a competitive rent, or a rent which others would pay. Now, Sir, I ask again, what is to be the criterion of value, because there is nothing laid down in the Bill as to the annual value of the land. Is it to be value or not? If not value, then the sooner the Government say so, and announce to the world that they have introduced a principle of taking one man's property and giving it to another on terms which do not represent the value, the better. If, on the other hand, it is to be a value which is not to be open to unlimited competition, I shall be willing to make a concession on the point. But if we are going to interfere with the laws of supply and demand at all, it is the more necessary that we should define the limit of the market within which the value is to be ascertained.
      MR. MACFARLANE: It appears to me that the speech to which we have just been listening would have been very appropriate if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kimber) had made it in 1881, before the Irish Land Act was passed, because it has laid down some general principles—principles which I do not for one moment admit—which have been scattered to the four winds of Heaven during the last few years. But, Sir, I have an Amendment to propose which I think will peculiarly apply to the case of the Scotch Highlands and Islands. After the word "particularly," in line 37 of this clause, I would propose to insert these words—
      "Excluding any increased value due to any improvements on the holding which may have been executed by the crofter or his predecessor."
      Now, I hope that is an Amendment which will be acceptable both to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate and to the hon. Member who has just spoken. That would be a direction to the Commission that they shall not charge rent on the improvements made by the tenant. We know that the complaint in Ireland has been that, notwithstanding the general instructions which were given, full charges have been made upon the tenants' improvements, and I am anxious that this shall not happen in this case. That is all that I desire—nothing but fair play between the two parties. Let the landlord have that which is his, and let the

      515
      tenant have that which is his, and the more specific this declaration is, the less litigation we shall have in the future. Now, the Amendment which I have to propose will obviate this difficulty, I will not refer to the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who proposes to remove that limitation from the owners, and to give them carte blanche to do as they please.
      MR. KIMBER: I beg your pardon; I proposed nothing of the kind.
      MR. MACFARLANE: I was not speaking in regard to what the hon. Member said, but as to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Solicitor General for Scotland. (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson). I beg, Sir, to move the Amendment.
      THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. Member cannot move an Amendment until the Amendment already before the Committee is disposed of.
      MR. MACFARLANE: Can I not move an Amendment upon an Amendment?
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. CHAPLIN: I will not follow the hon. Member who has just spoken into the discussion which he has introduced, and which may come on later; but I wish to say a few words upon the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend says, having in view the effect of similar legislation in Ireland, that a clause should, be inserted in this Bill for the guidance of the Land Commission in fixing the fair rent which ought to be paid. He desires that the leading principle shall be the rent for which the holding may be reasonably expected to let from year to year to a solvent tenant, putting aside the improvements made upon the holding. That being the principle, my hon. and learned Friend appealed to the Government to state distinctly whether they will accept the principle which he enunciated, or, if they will not, what is the basis upon which, in the view of the Government, fair rent ought to be fixed? The right hon. and and learned Lord Advocate, instead of giving an answer, proceeded, with more or less adroitness, to criticize the Amendment, and to point out the objections to which it might give rise. According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Amendment would lead
      516
      to competitive rents, and he indicated the case of the neighbouring owner of a deer forest who might be willing to pay £1,000 a-year in order to square his forest. Well, it appears to me that that is not a reasonable argument, because the Amendment merely relates to a croft as a croft, and if there is any difficulty in regard to that matter, no doubt my hon. Friend will consent to the introduction of additional words in order to make it clear. But Her Majesty's Government have given no answer to the question which has been raised by my hon. Friend, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has replied instead to some observations that have been made in regard to Ireland, and alleged that there was no reason whatever why a similar restriction as to fair rent should not be laid down for the Land Commission in Scotland as in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his reasons for stating that there is great similarity between the cases of Ireland and Scotland; but I venture to differ altogether from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for I am of opinion that there is the widest possible difference between them. The circumstances of Ireland which led to the introduction of a principle which, it was admitted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), could only be justified by the peculiar circumstances of the country, and which, if I remember rightly, the Prime Minister stated could not properly be introduced into England or Scotland, were that in Ireland there was a land hunger, leading to a competition which was altogether unknown in the other parts of the Kingdom. The land hunger, which was the chief feature of the peculiar condition of Ireland, produced results by which tenants were willing to give exorbitant rents for their farms. It was stated before a Royal Commission, on which I sat, that a tenant had been actually known to pay as much as 60 years' purchase, in addition to the rent for the goodwill, of a farm of which he became the occupying tenant. But would anybody pretend that anything like that exists in any part of Scotland?
      MR. M. HARRIS: I do.
      MR. CHAPLIN: At all events, the cry of hon. Gentleman from Ireland was that the population was overcrowded.
      MR. M. HARRIS: Only in special localities.
      MR. CHAPLIN: But can anyone say that anything approaching that state of things exists in any part of Scotland at the present time? What was the complaint of the hon. Gentlemen whom I will call the professional friends of the crofters? During the whole of this debate, their complaint has been that the people have been banished from the country and divorced from the soil, and what they want is to repopulate the country. But there is another great difference to the case of Ireland, and that is that in Ireland the land is the only thing the people have to look to for their living and support. There are no industries in Ireland, except in the extreme North, to which the surplus population could resort for the means of obtaining a livelihood. But everyone who has studied this question knows that in the Highlands there is a great industry, and that is the fishing industry, which all who are acquainted with the circumstances of the country acknowledge ought to be developed as the best means to which the people can look for a profitable existence in the future. Therefore, I think I have proved to the Committee that there is a great distinction between the two countries. The Committee has been told that the Irish legislation at that time was so much and so carefully discussed that we must assume it was wise, and that Parliament acted in a manner which commanded, or ought to command, our support and admiration. Now, I venture to say that the action of Parliament at that time was entirely mistaken. That was my view at the time, and everything that has happened since then has only confirmed me in that opinion. Why, the right hon. Gentleman himself, although he appeared to have believed with the wisdom of that legislation at the time, is not prepared to get up in his place and say that he thinks the Irish legislation of 1881 has been a success. If it has been a success, what is the meaning of the present difficulties and the great crisis we are in with respect to Ireland? It is not necessary for me to say anything more to show that the system of fair rents in Ireland has broken down; and it appears to me that the difficulties of this question, from past experience, are of such a great and important cha-
      518
      racter, that we ought not to leave the fixing of fair rents to the vague instructions which were given in the case of Ireland, and which are given in this Bill also. But if the House of Commons is disposed, and really does intend, to make the experiment, then the least we can do is to give more definite instructions by accepting the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson).
      MR. FINLAY&c.): I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bute, the effect of which is to insert in the Bill a direction to the Land Court that they shall take as a fair rent that rent which may be fixed by what is called the higgling of the market, subject only to this consideration—that any improvement executed by the crofter or his predecessor of the same family within 20 years shall not be taken into account for the purpose of enhancing the rent. However appropriate, in other circumstances, the test of the higgling of the market may be in fixing what is a fair rent, it is inconsistent with the whole scope of this legislation that it should be adopted in the case of the Highlands, where there are what are called crofting parishes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) has, I think, felt the force of the criticisms of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate upon the Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman admits that it is not desirable to include such elements of competition as the Lord Advocate wishes to exclude. A case has been put of a man who is prepared to give a higher price for a croft than anyone else for sporting purposes—the competition of a neighbouring proprietor who wishes to round off his deer forest by securing possession of a croft. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford says that the hon. and learned Member for Bute will be ready to introduce words into his Amendment that will exclude elements of competition of that description. I apprehend that that admission is, however, enough to condemn the Amendment. If my hon. and learned Friend tries to put into definite shape the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, he will find it difficult to

      519
      exclude those elements of competition which none of us desire to see introduced in that case. I think it would be a far better plan to leave the matter, as proposed in the clause, to the Land Court, giving them a direction to take into account—
      "All the circumstances of the case, and particularly after taking into consideration any permanent improvements on the holding which may have been executed by the crofter or his predecessor of the same family."
      That would enable us to get at a result more harmonious with this scheme of legislation than we could attain by leaving the rent to be settled by a form of competition which, in the case with which we are dealing, would be mischievous.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Finlay), I may say I do not think it would be very difficult to insert words such as would secure us against such competition as he suggests. If we amended the proposed Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), by inserting, after the word "let," in the second line, the words "for agricultural purposes," the clause would read—
      "The fair rent shall be the rent at which, one year with another, such holding might in its natural state be reasonably expected to let for agricultural purposes from year to year;"
      That simple alteration, it seems to me, would exclude all dangerous competition. The only kind of dangerous competition that has been suggested is that which would arise where a landlord might want to take a croft into a deer forest, and would be prepared to pay a large sum of money for it. Competition of that kind is, no doubt, greatly to be deprecated. With the words I propose introduced, however, no such danger could possibly arise. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) will be willing to allow the introduction of those words into his Amendment.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think, as my hon. Friend who has just sat down has remarked, the difficulty could be overcome by the introduction of the words he has suggested, or the objection raised by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate could be met by the insertion of words importing that the holding is only to be
      520
      let as a croft, and not as a deer forest. But leaving the question whether minute verbal alterations are or are not required in the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and turning to the broad question before the Committee, I am bound to say that I think the point was very unsatisfactorily argued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. He began his speech, and finished it, with an appeal to the precedent of the Irish Land Act; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) appeared to think that, because the Irish Land Act contained certain words—because the wisdom of Parliament in 1881 had determined that certain words should be adopted, rather than other words—all future Parliaments are to be bound by that decision. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was a Member of the last Parliament. The hon. Member for Argyll was, I am aware; but I do not think that those of us who happened to be in that Parliament entertain such an exaggerated or exalted view of its wisdom, or, at all events, of the wisdom of its Executive, as to cause us to consider that any words it adopted are so obviously and necessarily the right words that discussion of them henceforth becomes impertinent and superfluous. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, whilst appealing to the precedent of 1881, referred only in the most vague manner to the language used in the debate to support the words ultimately introduced into the Act. He did tell us that the question had been considered for a long time; but he did not tell us what were the reasons alleged by the Government of the day for preferring those words that were ultimately adopted to words similar in import to those my hon. and learned Friend beside me proposes to introduce into this Bill, and in not doing so I think he was judicious. All of us who recollect that debate remember perfectly well that though the Government of that day were absolutely determined to stick to their own form of words, they were not very strong in the reasons they adduced, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate very judiciously refrained from repeating in the course of the present debate. But leaving the precedent of the Irish Land Act which, after all, as my right

      521
      hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) pointed out, is no precedent in the case of Scotland at all, let us turn for one moment to the merits of the case, and consider what were the arguments of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in support of the wording of the Bill. He seemed to think that, under the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness, some rent would be exacted from the tenants on account of what we used to be familiar with in the late Irish debates as pretium affectionis. He seemed to think that there is a land hunger amongst the tenants of the Highlands and Islands, and that they would pay almost anything rather than be turned out of their holdings when one of the circumstances arose that would, if the Amendment were carried, be considered by the landlords, and induce them to fix the rent at a figure which no tenant, having regard for his interests apart from his affection for the land, would be prepared to pay. No one on this side of the House, least of all my hon. and learned Friend near me (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), has the smallest desire to exact from any tenant in the Highlands or elsewhere money which is not given on account of the value of land, but on account of the tenant's affection for the land on which he was born and the district in which he was brought up. No one wishes that, and we are not of opinion that the words of my hon. and learned Friend, interpreted by any reasonable tribunal, would have any such result. Then, if you but add to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the words "to a solvent tenant," though we do not think them necessary, being of opinion that any Law Court in Scotland would assume the hypothetical tenant to be a solvent tenant, we should be perfectly prepared to do it if hon. Gentlemen opposite desire it. After all, what is the ground on which my hon. and learned Friend moves this Amendment? If you leave the Bill in the form in which it has been introduced by Her Majesty's Government, you practically give no direction at all as to the principle on which the rent is to be determined. You leave it absolutely to the discretion of the three gentlemen whom you are going to appoint—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has very candidly told us the
      522
      Government have not the slightest idea who these three gentlemen are to be. Now, you ought not, and you cannot, expect that the Court shall not only interpret the law, but declare the law. If you leave the Bill in its present shape, the Court will not only have to decide how the principles of fixing rent are to be interpreted, but they will also have to determine what those principles are. My hon. and learned Friend, I think, showed in the clearest manner that under the Bill as it at present stands there is no circumstances, however irrelevant to the true value of the holding, which concerns either the landlord or the tenant, which might not by a weak and incompetent or ill-disposed Court be taken into account when they are fixing a fair rent. We think that what the Legislature intends, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate intends, is that the fair and real commercial value should be asked for the holding; and I will ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will give us a straight clear answer to the question—Is it, or is it not, intended that the fair rent shall be the fair commercial rent which will be given by a solvent tenant, uninfluenced by the pretium affectionis or absurd land hunger? Is that the rent which the Government are propared to say the Court ought to adjudicate and give to the landlord? Is it that, or is it not? If it is something less than that, then we assert that the Government, under the thin disguise of justice to the tenants, are, in fact, passing a Bill which is intended to rob the landlords. ["Oh, oh!"] I say "if"—if they do something other than that. If, on the other hand, they mean that the rent to be adjudicated by the Land Court is to be a rent which a solvent tenant would give for the land uninfluenced by the pretium affectionis, what we ask is that it should be put down in black and white, in clear and unmistakable language, either in the form recommended by my hon. and learned Friend, or in some other form which may appear to the Government more advisable, that that is what they desire, and all they desire, that the Land Court should take into consideration. After all, no human being supposes that the Land Court directed by these words of my hon. and learned Friend would, for one moment, say that the fair rent of a

      523
      holding was that which some millionaire owner of a deer forest might be prepared to give in order to round off his forest. No one believes that to be possible. If the words of my hon. and learned Friend are open to that construction—which I say they are not—the defect might be remedied by some verbal Amendment. But we should like to have a clear answer from the Government, whether they do or do not think that the fair rent which this Court is to adjudicate is the rent which would be given by a solvent tenant not influenced by pretium affectionis if the land was put up to competition? Let them give us a straight answer to that, and we shall know where we are.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I hope Her Majesty's Government will not be entrapped into giving an answer to a question of that kind. If we are to enter into that question, we shall be discussing it for a week, or a fortnight, or a month. We had it all out at the time of the passing of the Irish Land Act. Every possible definition was tried, and it was found impossible to settle the matter in any other way than it was settled at that time. The provision in this Bill is similar to that in the Irish Act; and I hope we shall not waste any further time on this academical discussion.
      MR. RAMSAY&c.): I wish to say a word or two in consequence of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. He says that this measure is in principle identical with that of the Irish Land Act.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: What I said was that this particular question is identical in the two cases.
      MR. RAMSAY: That this particular question is identical in the two cases. Now, there was nothing more frequently repeated in the course of the discussion on the Irish Land Act than the assurance given by the Prime Minister of that day—that none of the provisions of the Bill then under discussion were applicable to any holding in England or Scotland. [Cries of "Divide!"] We are discussing a very important point. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to place Scotland—this limited area of Scotland—in the position of Ireland, he should not adhere to these terms. If there be ambiguities in them—and in my opinion there are, and I am accus-
      524
      tomed to looking through Acts of Parliament—they should be amended. I think there is ambiguity in the expression, "all the circumstances of the case," especially as it may affect the poverty of an owner or the poverty of an occupier, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) has said—I think it may mean either the one or the other—and I say that a prejudice may arise in the minds of the Land Commissioners to favour either the one or the other. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members persist in these interruptions, I shall move to report Progress. I would do that rather than risk not giving a hearing in this Committee to men whose interests are assailed. To tell gentlemen sitting as a Land Court to determine according to "all the circumstances of the case" is to impose upon them a very vague duty, and is an expression which should not be made part of an Act of Parliament. What I would suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend below me (the Lord Advocate), is that the clause should be altered—without, perhaps, including all those matters that were alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin)—by striking out the words "all the circumstances of the case," and making the circumstances those of the holding and the district in which it is situated. "All the circumstances of the case" renders the whole thing vague. What are all the circumstances of the case? They may be anything that the members of the Land Court may choose to take into consideration. I would leave it thus—
      "May determine what is the fair rent at which the holding may reasonably be expected to let at from year to year, and determine accordingly."
      I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate should accept that suggestion, and so improve the clause without affecting the interests of either owners or occupiers. I know there are Gentleman on this side of the House who are desirous of injuring the landlords or landowners in every way they possibly can, and would try to introduce the Irish Land Laws into Scotland. I should deprecate the placing of any portion of my countrymen in such a position as Ireland occupies at the present moment. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give

      525
      some consideration to the suggestion which has been made for the amendment of the clause.
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I had to leave the Committee for a short time, and as I left it seems the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate got upon his legs. I was very much surprised on coming back to find that either he had stated what he had to state extremely briefly, or that some powerful influence behind him had prevented him from saying what he was about to say. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen cry "Divide!" but I want to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got to say on this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are now, I think, quite alive to the fact that this is a very important question indeed, and one that ought to be considered with some calmness, and also on which we ought to have definite statements from the Front Bench opposite. [The LORD ADVOCATE: Hear, hear!] "Hear, hear!" says my right hon. and learned Friend. Now, if I recollect aright, when my right hon. and learned Friend was up before, and when I did hear what he had got to say, what he told us was that he had great objection to the use of the words "might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year," because those words might include the case of a proprietor close at hand, or someone else interested in a deer forest, who, for the purpose of settling the marches and getting his forest squared, might be anxious to take a croft. Therefore, he objected to the words of my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) as not being clearer and better than those he himself had inserted in his clause. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he considers that the words "the circumstances of the case" tend in any way to exclude such a case as he has supposed? I should imagine that if the case is to be taken on the footing of the wishes and intentions of the people and all the surroundings of the croft, the phrase "the circumstances of the case" is a good deal wider than the words of my hon. and learned Friend, because the word "case" refers to the exact moment at which the question of rent is decided; whereas, I take it that any valuator,
      526
      setting himself to consider at what rate a certain subject might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, would not consider the circumstances of the exact moment only, but would consider the whole surroundings and the circumstances of the district. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that if such a case did arise—the case of a proprietor who desires to take in a croft and lands connected with it for the purpose of squaring the marches of a deer forest—any Land Commission that could sit, even though the chief of it was not merely a barrister—[An hon. MEMBER: An advocate]—I beg pardon. No doubt, I should have said "advocate;" but I am speaking in the House of Commons, and my desire is to make myself intelligible to the whole Committee. In a select circle of Scotch Members, I might have used the correct word; but, under the circumstances, as that word would rather suggest a pleader, I adopted the phrase "barrister," as being, speaking generally, better understood by all sections of Members. I say, would not any Land Commission hold that words so vague, so general, so uncertain, as "the circumstances of the case," would be much more likely to include the case I have referred to than the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman beside me? Now, Sir, no doubt the fact that these words have not been used in this Bill which are used in the Scotch Valuation Act has been well and reasonably accounted for by the circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, when they set to work to frame this Bill, naturally went to Ireland for their instructions. It was more natural for them to take words in the Irish Act than words in a Scotch Act of Parliament; but I have yet to learn from my right hon. and learned Friend, or from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland, who has not yet spoken in this important debate—a debate which the Lord Advocate has himself declared to be important—what their objection is to the words used in our Scotch Statute. I have yet to learn whether either of them is able to state the historical fact that any assessor, in considering the valuation of a subject at—

      527
      "The rent at which, one year with another, such holding might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year,"
      has ever taken into consideration such a ridiculous circumstance as someone, say, for instance, a noble Duke, wanting to absorb it for the purpose of rounding a deer forest, and being prepared to pay an absurdly high price for it. An assessor dealing with the subject deals with it on the basis of what, as a general question, it would fetch at a fair rent in the district. Assuredly the word in question were intended to express, in the most clear manner, that the assessor is to take into reasonable consideration the sum for which the subject could, in its existing state, be let from year to year. It is clear that, with the exception which is stated in this Bill, and with which we all agree—namely, the improvements which have been made by the tenant—there would be no difficulty, in dealing with crofts, in coming to what is their value from year to year exactly in the same way as the assessor deals with value under the Valuation Act. The Land Commission will have to consider what is the reasonable and fair rent as between the person owning the land and the person taking the land, not something between the crofter and somebody competing with him; and I shall be surprised if either of my hon. and learned Friends opposite would state that any Land Court could read the Act in any other way. There is one other matter I wish to refer to—namely, that which has been raised by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane). The hon. Gentleman suggested, as an Amendment, that we should add words excluding from consideration any increased value due to any improvements in the holding which might be executed by the crofter or his predecessor. I would point out that this would make no practical difference in the clause at all. My main reason for rising, however, was to ascertain from the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite whether they intend that the words used in the Scotch Valuation Act, to which there is no real objection, should be used in this Bill; and, whether, seeing that the Bill is one which deals with Scotch matters, and which will be considered by Scotch lawyers, it is not better to have words in it with which we are all acquainted?
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I should not have risen again to speak on a subject which I have already dealt with, perhaps, at too great length, but for the circumstance that my right hon. and learned Friend went out and did not hear all my remarks.
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I did not go out during my right hon. and learned Friend's speech; I rose when he was supposed to speak but did not, and when I came back he had begun.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE: I still believe that if the Amendment were inserted, there would be the risk to which I have referred. It is one thing to value under a Valuation Act for the purpose of rating, everybody connected with the land whether as proprietor or tenant, being interested in low rating, and, therefore, in low valuing for rating purposes; but it is another thing when we come to the question of fixing fair rent, where all the considerations I have spoken of may make for the rent being fixed too high. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) asked me a question as to whether a fair rent is anything different from a commercial rent, which a solvent tenant would pay, not allowing anything for pretium affectionis. I certainly think that that is not very far from a correct description of a fair rent; but it is not the language of the Amendment, and the dangers which lurk under the Amendment would not lurk in that language. I suppose that by "solvent tenant" is meant one who not only can pay, but who can pay from a business carried on on the spot, not from other resources. What is the difference between that and the fair rent which a man can live and thrive while paying?
      MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: May I be allowed to say that, in the course of this discussion, I have heard only two valid objections stated to my Amendment? First, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has said that the great danger and evil in this part of the country is that there is a great congestion of population; that the people cannot live and thrive upon their holdings, and that high rents will be the effect of the competition for holdings. I have the advantage of knowing that he right hon. and learned Gentleman has a large experience in valuation trials,

      529
      and I ask is it not a settled rule in these proceedings that the Court rejects as evidence of value all leases and agreements which have resulted in insolvency? Accordingly, if in any district the Commission has to ascertain the value of a particular holding, and if it be proposed to hold that a particular rent is the true value, they would at once proceed to ask if that was ever offered or paid, and how the tenant got on, and if they found that the tenant was bankrupt in consequence of that rent they would reject it and turn to another valuation. But is not that the argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate ignores? The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to put in a clause dealing with arrears, and these arrears have to be dealt with simply because rents are too high and people unable to pay. That is the first thing which the Land Commission, under the Amendment which I propose, would consider, and they would accordingly reject every precedent founded on rent which the tenants were unable to pay. That is one point. The other point is the somewhat fanciful and somewhat strange hypothesis which the right hon. and learned Gentleman resorted to, of some millionaire tenant of a deer forest proposing to buy up all the property in the neighbourhood. But the same process would be applied by any experienced tribunal to this instance. They would look at each croft and see what it would yield from year to year in its natural state, and that means not as part of a deer forest, but as held by a crofter. That is quite sufficient to reject the objection which my right hon. and learned Friend has put. But, apart from that, are cases of that kind so frequent and so continuous that any experienced tribunal would take them into account? On these grounds, I appeal to the good sense of the Committee. My position on the subject is this—I am not anxious to keep up rents, but I want to have them settled on intelligible principles; and I think it is the duty of Parliament, in dealing with what is an entirely novel and experimental method of ascertaining the value of land, to lay down plain and intelligible rules for the guidance of the Land Commission. I say that the clause proposed by the Government furnishes no rule; and that, on the contrary, instead of concentrating
      530
      the attention of the Court on the property, it diverts its attention to all the circumstances of every human being connected with the case, and every ancillary circumstance which can be called into play, so as to distract attention. I have not heard that defence or excuse of this method being laid down instead of a plain definition which I should have expected from my right hon. and learned Friend. My object is to furnish a rule to the Commission which anyone who reads may understand, and I cannot refrain from asking the Committee to express its opinion upon it. I think it may be considered as an axiom, with regard to all administrative bodies, that no matter how excellent and well-selected such a body may be, its members are but human, and as such you cannot get together any three men one of whom shall not have a bias towards the irrelevant.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 66: Majority 150.—(Div. List, No. 55.)
      MR. MACFARLANE: I do not wish to revive the discussion which has occupied the last two hours and a-half. I have listened with amazement to the arguments of many learned lawyers opposite in favour of excluding from the consideration of the Judges "the circumstances of the case." This is the first time that I ever heard such an argument as that the circumstances of a case to be left to the discretion of the Judges should be removed from the cognizance of the Judges. The complaint in Ireland is that the Judges of the Land Court have not clearly understood the meaning of the clause in the Irish Act; and the tenants complain that they have been rented on their own improvements. I propose to amend the clause by the insertion of an instruction to the Commission to the effect that in considering the fair rent—
      "They shall particularly exclude any increased value due to any improvements on the holding which may have been executed by the crofter or his predecessor."
      I wish expressly to exclude from the consideration of the Court any value of the holding which is due to the action of the tenant—which is due to the expenditure of his labour and capital. I hope that the words I propose will make

      531
      the matter clear. My object in proposing this Amendment is to avoid a difficulty which has arisen in the operation of the Irish Land Act.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 37, omit the words "taking into consideration," and insert "excluding any increased value."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'taking into consideration' stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I am afraid it will not be expedient to accept this Amendment. Reference has been made to the Irish Land Act; and I may point out to my hon. Friend. (Mr. Macfarlane) that, under the 9th sub-section of that Act which he proposes to adopt in substance, though not in exact words, a great deal of difficulty has arisen. There the words were—
      "For which, in the opinion of the Court, the tenant, or his predecessor in title, has not been paid or otherwise compensated by the landlord or his predecessor."
      In short, the two things have been held to create a set-off against each other. There is, first of all, the declaration that you are to exclude the one thing, and then a negative declaration that you are to exclude something else. We had that in view when framing the clause; but, of course, it is for the Committee to say whether they will, by adopting affirmative words simply directing that this shall be considered, without absolutely dictating the conclusion at which the Land Commission shall arrive, avoid the dangers which have arisen under the Irish Land Act.
      MR. CHANCE: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is somewhat mistaken. In the case of Adams v. Dunseath it was decided that the Court had to take two things into consideration in fixing fair rent; they had to ascertain the unimproved value of the soil, and in addition to that they had to take into consideration the improvements. The Court went upon the theory that the improvements were made by the landlord and tenant in partnership, the tenant bringing to the partnership capital and labour, and the landlord bringing what was described as the latent capacity of the soil for improvement. It was held that, owing to the
      532
      landlord having contributed the latent capacity of the soil for improvement, he was to get some rent in respect of it, and that rent was to be added to the fair rent. In stating that as the result of the case of Adams v. Dunseath, I speak in the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Holmes), who, I believe, was counsel for one of the parties. In consequence of the Court's decision, the tenant was taxed for the improvements towards which the landlord contributed nothing whatever. I do not argue that that is a reasonable construction for any Court to put upon the words of the Act; but the construction I described was placed upon the words; and I have very little doubt that what happened in the case of Adams v. Dunseath would be quoted, if necessary, in the Highlands of Scotland. We know that Courts are inclined to compliment each other on the decisions they arrive at. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) tells us that the same thing could not happen under this clause. We get many legal opinions in this House, and especially from the Treasury Bench, which are not afterwards borne out by the result. I think the Amendment is a necessary one; it will merely carry out in more distinct language what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has in view.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would like the Committee to note the great change which has taken place in the judgment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) as to the merits of the wording of the Irish Land Act since we discussed the last Amendment. The hon. Gentleman, replying to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), who had just proposed an Amendment, thought the wording of the Irish Act was so perfect that he was indignant at the very idea of altering it.
      MR. MACFARLANE: What I referred to was, not the wording, but the principle of the Act.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was no discussion as to the principle; but the question was whether the principle was carried out by the wording of the Act. I think the hon. Gentleman is bound not to persevere with this Amendment.
      MR. MACFARLANE: I will not press the Amendment; it is useless to divide when it is evident the majority of the Committee are against me.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. HUNTER: I beg to move that the word "permanent," in line 38, be omitted, and the word "unexhausted" be inserted instead thereof. It is very clear that a very large part of the value of a farm may arise from the high degree of fertility to which it has been raised by a long and scientific application of manures. Under the operation of the clause, as it at present stands, much of the real value due to the tenant will be entirely excluded from consideration. On the other hand, it is very desirable that words should be inserted to protect the landlord against spurious claims; and I think the word "unexhausted"—would serve that purpose.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, omit the word "permanent," and insert "unexhausted,"—(Mr. Hunter,) instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the word 'permanent' stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR&c.): I must say I think this would be an improvement of the clause. The question which arises under this clause is not that of paying compensation, but that of ascertaining rent; and therefore it does seem to me that there might be improvements which, although not of that permanent character which would demand or require money compensation for the outgoing tenant, might yet be sufficient to take into account in determining what was a just rent to be paid by the sitting tenant.
      MR. CHAPLIN: I have no objection to raise to the principle contained in this proposal; but it appears to me that, if it is to be adopted by the Committee, it would be necessary that there should be another Schedule stating what are unexhausted improvements. [The LORD ADVOCATE dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) shakes his head; but, unless there is a Schedule, who is to decide what are unexhausted improvements? [The LORD ADVOCATE: The Land Com-
      534
      mission.] That is all very well; but I remember that in all previous legislation of this nature the improvements for which compensation is to be paid have been Scheduled. They may have been divided into different classes; they may have been called permanent improvements or temporary improvements; but I think it would be going a great deal too far to lay down in this Bill that compensation should be given for unexhausted improvements without the slightest indication in the Bill as to what unexhausted improvements are to consist of. Unless I receive some assurance from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that this point will be carefully considered by the Government, I cannot say I should be so ready to accept the Amendment.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE: This Amendment is not on the Paper. I think it is an improvement; but I shall be very glad to consider before the time of Report whether any Schedule is needed or not. I must say, however, that the impression on my mind at the present moment is that a Schedule will not be needed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will recollect that in 1883 the great reason for classifying improvements under three heads was, that for one class of improvements consent was required; for a second class, notice without consent; and for a third class, neither consent nor notice. We have no case of that kind here, and therefore the reason does not now exist for classifying the improvements which existed at that time.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I confess I do not quite like the change, so far as the four corners of this Bill are concerned. It seems to me that the very nature of permanent improvements is that they are unexhausted. Besides, these tenants have also the benefit of the Agricultural Holdings Act. I am willing to accept the Amendment, on the understanding that the tenants will still be entitled to consideration for certain improvements not permanent under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I would suggest that, instead of striking out the word "permanent," my hon. Friend should add the words "or unexhausted."
      MR. HUNTER: Yes; I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and in lieu thereof add the words "or unexhausted" after "permanent."
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the whole matter had better stand over till Report, and for this reason—if we are not to have a Schedule, and on that point the Government do not appear to have made up their minds, I do not think we ought to have these words at all. We had better leave the Bill as it is, and let the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate consider the matter.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE: Of course, if I did reconsider the matter, it would be on the understanding that the evident sense of the Committee seemed to be that, in some shape or form, these words should be inserted. Suppose a man put manure in the land which would last for three years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunter) would see fit to strike out both adjectives, and leave only "improvements." In the Irish Land Act, to which reference has been so often made, only the word "improvements" is used.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. HUNTER: I move now to insert, after the word "permanent," the words "or unexhausted."
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, after the word "permanent," insert the words "or unexhausted."—(Mr. Hunter.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. CHAPLIN: I only wish to have a clear and distinct understanding on this point, so that there may be no mistake when the question is raised hereafter. What we contend is this—that of all improvements by which the fixing of the rent is to be guided there must be a definition in the Bill. The definition of improvements, whether they are permanent improvements or whether they are unexhausted improvements, ought not, in our opinion, to be left entirely to the Land Commissioners. The principle for which we contend has been recognized already in the Bill, because there is a Schedule stating distinctly what permanent improvements are to consist of. There is no reason that I am able to see for making any
      536
      distinction with regard to unexhausted improvements; indeed, I believe that to make such a distinction would be a clear departure from recognized legislation on this subject. I hope the Government will undertake to add to the Bill a definition of unexhausted improvements, either in the shape of a new Schedule or in some other form.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I hardly like at the moment to give a positive promise that we will put in another Schedule. I think the entire Committee will be agreed as to this—that any improvements must have a residue of advantage in them. Whether it would be quite safe to put in a Schedule without rather fuller information as to all possible improvements, I can hardly say; but I will undertake to consider the matter, and confer with those who have knowledge of it. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Nothing is to be done now?] I think the words "or unexhausted" might be inserted. The word "permanent" covers improvements such as buildings; and "unexhausted" those which, though they may not have the quality of permanency, are still not worked out or exhausted, such as manuring and limeing. Drains will come under the category of unexhausted improvements, for they will sometimes last five, 10, 25, or 30 years.
      MR. TOMLINSON: I think the remarks of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) really demonstrated the necessity of there being some Schedule of unexhausted improvements, because he enumerated things which he thinks come under "unexhausted" improvements, but which are already in the Schedule as "permanent" improvements.
      MR. MACFARLANE: It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has stated the case perfectly intelligibly. There is no Court in the world who would take into consideration improvements of which no residue remained.
      Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: Hon. Members opposite object to the word "unexhausted"—["No, no!"]—and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplain) wants a Schedule of the improvements. What is the meaning of all this? It must be that the landlord shall get the benefit of some improve-

      537
      ments effected by tenants which are not in the Schedule. The Schedules in the Agricultural Holdings Act were put in for the express purpose of making the Act of no effect. The broad principle, that the tenant is to be compensated for his improvements according to the value of them to his successor, is laid down in the 1st clause of the Agricultural Holdings Act; but then a Schedule was appended to the Bill, specifying the improvements for which the tenant was to be compensated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplain) wants a Schedule of unexhausted improvements to this Bill, so that if a tenant makes improvements which do not happen to be in the 1st Schedule they can be confiscated by the landlord.
      MR. CHANCE: May I suggest to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) that both sides might be satisfied if the word "permanent" were omitted, and the words "then existing" inserted?
      MR. HUNTER: When we come to the Definition Clause, could not the difficulty be met by introducing some words which would make "unexhausted" clear?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Amendment is not on the Paper, and therefore we have not had an opportunity of considering it. There really is a danger lurking behind these words, unless they are properly guarded. The tenant seeks for a valued rent of his holding, having put in manures which have an unexhausted value of five years. The lease lasts 15 years. The rent for the 15 years is to be determined, and if the Amendment is passed, partially upon the unexhausted value of the five years of manures. At the end of the term, the man comes for a reconsideration of his lease. He has not kept up his land to the same heart, I may say; but the grounds of the decision at the beginning of the first 15 years are not before the Court at the beginning of the second 15 years, and they will take into consideration the rent fixed at the beginning of the first term by the previous Court, without knowing that part of that rent was determined by improvements which have since become exhausted. I only put this point of difficulty before the Committee as one which deserves consideration, and I earnestly recommend them not to adopt at this moment any
      538
      words at all, but simply assent to the broad principle—that no tenant is to be charged for the value of improvements, permanent or transitory, any part of the value of which is not exhausted. I ask the Government to consider the question in all its bearings, and bring up an Amendment on Report.
      MR. GREGORY: I beg to support the appeal to the Government to consider this question between this and Report, and not adopt the words brought up on the spur of the moment. The clause contemplates permanent improvements that spread over a long period of years, and date back for a long time, which is hardly applicable to what we now contemplate by unexhausted improvements. I think it is the general opinion that the word "permanent" should stand, and that some special words should be found to cover unexhausted improvements. The words proposed are not at all applicable to the clause, and their insertion would lead to confusion. The whole matter requires a good deal of consideration.
      MR. GOSCHEN: It appears to me that the Committee is so nearly agreed upon the principle of this Amendment that it would be a great pity if we went to a division. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) says he will accept the words proposed—namely, "or unexhausted." Hon. Members opposite consider that there ought to be a Schedule; and my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) admits that the difficulty ought to be met in the Definition Clause. If, then, the Committee are so nearly agreed, these words might be accepted. There would be plenty of time before we came to the end of the Bill for hon. Members either to bring up a Schedule which would embody their views, or a Definition Clause which would make the matter clear. I do not think hon. Members opposite would lose by the insertion of these words, to the principle of which I understand they do not dissent.
      Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I think there need be no hesitation in accepting these words, if there be a distinct understanding that we shall have a Definition Clause, or a Schedule, which will bring up the matter for full consideration.
      MR. TOMLINSON: The difference between a Schedule and a definition is absolutely immaterial. The only definition we have got of permanent improvements is—"Permanent improvements means the improvements specified in the Schedule to this Act."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. KIMBER: As an Amendment, I beg to move the insertion of the words "be proved to," after the word "may," in line 38. A careful reading of the clause shows that the words are important. When it is considered that these improvements may go back for a period which is not yet fixed, it is clear there should be some evidence that the improvements have been executed by the crofter or his predecessors in the same family; or it would do as well to leave out the word "may," and let the clause read "which have been executed."
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, after the word "may," insert the words "be proved to."—(Mr. Kimber.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I think that these words are not only unnecessary, but might be mischievous. They are unnecessary, because the Land Commission will not take any cognizance of what is not established to their satisfaction; and they might be mischievous, because, if in one particular case, the words "be proved to" are inserted, it might lead to the idea, in some uninstructed minds, that things that are not proved are to be taken into account in other cases.
      MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate might satisfy my hon. Friend (Mr. Kimber). At the same time, my hon. Friend's interposition has been useful. The distinct statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be some guide to the Land Commission.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE: If the word "may" is supposed to create a difficulty, we might put in a word not of possibility, but of certainty. I will move to leave out "may" and insert "shall."
      Question, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—put, and agreed to.
      Amendment (Mr. Kimber), by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, leave out "may."—(The Lord Advocate.)
      Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause" put, and negatived.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I have a small Amendment to move, which I think the Government will be able to accept. I desire to insert the words "or paid for," after "executed." The words are used in Clause 8. I think it is necessary the reading of the two clauses should correspond.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 39, after "executed," insert "or paid for."—(Sir George Campbell.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): If my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell) only means something the crofter has paid somebody else for doing work for him, that would be the same as something executed by him. If, on the other hand, he means by the use of the words "or paid for" to bring in again our old friend "free sale," I certainly shall oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it will have a dangerous result.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I mean to do nothing of the kind. I merely wish to use the words in the same sense as they are used in Clause 8.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE: If there is anything wrong with the 8th clause, we will gladly amend it when we come to it.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 229: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 56.)
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—that is, in page 3, line 39, after "executed," insert "within

      541
      30 years previous to the date of the application." I think the Members of the Committee will agree with me that it will be very undesirable to leave this Clause 6 in any way indefinite. On turning to the other clauses of the Bill, I find that in Clause 8 the Government have, in drawing this Bill, fixed 30 years as the period which was laid down for compensation for improvements in the case of a crofter leaving his tenancy. I have taken, therefore, the same term of years as the period during which the Land Commission should take into account permanent improvements in fixing the fair rent. I do not wish to trouble the Committee; but I think that as the Government themselves have fixed 30 years in the Compensation Clause, that period ought to be adopted in this clause.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I would point out to the Committee that the question here is not quite the same. The object in this case is not to bring out the precise money sum, or the precise money value which shall form a claim against the landlord, but merely to determine what is the fair rent payable. I submit that if the improvement is there, it would be a mistake to say that the residue shall not be taken into account, merely because it was made over 30 years before.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But in the Clause the rent is to be determined upon purely monetary considerations; and, therefore, if the Government are right in fixing 30 years as the period within which compensation can be claimed for improvements, I do not quite catch the force of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he says that we are to go beyond 30 years in fixing the rent. I have grave doubts, moreover, whether improvements effected more than 30 years ago are worth taking into account.
      MR. TOMLINSON: I. think it is desirable that we should limit the cost of the inquiry by the Commission as much as possible; and, therefore, it will certainly be advisable to fix the time beyond which their investigation shall not go with regard to improvements.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. M'CULLOCH: The Amendment which stands in my name deals with a question which exists all through the Bill, and that is the hereditary principle. I wish, in lines 39 and 40, in page 3, to move to leave out the words "with the same family," after the word "predecessor;" and I should have thought that the result of the Motion which we had the other night in regard to hereditary legislation ought to have kept this principle out of the Bill. I would like to ask the Committee, is an improvement any less an improvement because it is not executed by the relative of the tenant? Can any Member of the Committee give me an answer to that? I say no. I say it is no less an improvement, whether it is made by a relative or any other person, and I think the tenant is entitled to be paid for it, seeing that he has presumedly to pay for it when he entered. This is a principle which goes right through the Bill; but I hope the phrase will not be insisted upon, but will be dropped from the measure altogether.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I shall not go into any lengthened explanation of this matter in stating our reason for inserting these words, as I have already explained the views of the Government in a previous debate, when the sense of the Committee was taken upon it. I then pointed out that, according to Scotch law, there can be no such thing as a predecessor by the way of assignment in a yearly holding. We acknowledge only hereditary right through descent, and this necessarily shuts out the legal possibility of any transmission of any claim from anyone else, because the holding must have been back in the landlord's hands, and come again from him by a fresh arrangement with the new tenant. I cannot see, therefore, on what principle, if a holding has been back in the landlord's hands, and an arrangement has then been made with a new tenant, there should be compensation, the title to which has not been derived by kindred.
      DR. CLARK: In the Report of the Royal Commission, the Commissioners pointed out that a great amount of discontent in the Highlands was owing to the way in which customary rights were ignored. Now, as a matter of fact, the sale of improve-

      543
      ments by the old tenant to the new is a customary right which, whether the law allows it or not, exists. If there are districts where this custom exists, I cannot see why the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate objects to the Court being empowered to take such charges into account as a matter of equity, if not of law.
      MR. MACFARLANE: I do not want to go over the same ground again, as we have already discussed this matter. But whenever the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate is at a loss for an argument, he falls back on old Scotch law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman always brings forward this argument—that the crofters have never had this right of assignment in Scotland before, and therefore they shall not have it now. But by the Bill he is giving them fair rent and fixity of tenure. Did they have that before? I think not, or we should not have had the land agitation which has been going on in Scotland for the last five years. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that if you grant this, you grant the right of assignment, and he will not grant that concession to others besides members of the same family, because it would make the action of this Bill continuous. Now, that is not the intention of the Bill. The intention of the clause, as it stands, is to extinguish these people for want of heirs. That is the real object of this restriction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well, and the whole matter lies in this, that, as the Bill now stands, it will confer certain imaginary benefits on the existing crofters of Scotland; but those who have no heirs—whose heirs may be amongst those lying under the battlefields of the Soudan—although the law recognizes their right to transfer to their heirs, would not be able to sell. The result will be that every crofter who has not a direct heir will forfeit the right of the holding at his death; and, more than that, every crofter who desires to quit his holding, who takes his compensation and goes, leaves his croft to lapse, and perhaps to be added to Mr. Winan's deer forest. The real truth of this matter is that, without some arrangement for the succession of others as well as those in the same family, this Bill will be worthless, and within a few years the people for whom we are con-
      544
      tending now will be exterminated in the Highlands of Scotland.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I hope the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch) will not divide the Committee on this question, as we have already divided on it on a previous occasion. There has been no custom of the sale of tenures; but in many of the Northern counties it is a distinct practice that the improvements, which are called ameliorations, are bought by the incoming tenant from the outgoing tenant, with the full consent of the landlord.
      DR. MCDONALD: This Amendment will appear to be perfectly reasonable to anyone who has read the Report of the Royal Commission to the Highlands. I never heard of a landlord paying for any improvements on his land; bat as soon as the crofter goes, his improvements are confiscated.
      MR. BRUNNER: It seems to me that it is an exceedingly painful thing that we should be fighting like this on so simple a matter—that we should have all these arguments on the question of whether the crofter should or should not have the right of assignment.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 107; Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 57.)
      MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to move, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 40, after "family," to insert "not previously paid for or otherwise allowed for by the landlord or his predecessors." This Amendment will, I think, commend itself by its reasonableness without a long speech from me. I am sure the Government and the Committee have no intention of acting unfairly to the landlord, and that they desire to act fairly between him and the tenant. On looking through the Bill, I found it patent that, in the matter of compensation, the landlord might already have paid for the improvements made by the tenant in previous years. I found that in fixing the rent there was no provision made for this contingency; therefore I put my Amendment down to make such provision. It seems quite clear that directly this Bill becomes law,

      545
      though the landlord and tenant may, under private agreement, have come to some arrangement as to previous improvements, yet, under the clause as it now stands, in future transactions that arrangement may not be taken into account. Further than that, if you look at the end of the Bill at Clause 19, you will see the powers conferred on the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill may be "transferred to another body created under Act of Parliament," so that when the Commissioners may have fixed the judicial rent and taken an account of the improvements then made by the tenant and paid for by the landlord, this future Body, when the judicial term of 15 years may have expired, may come on the tapis and deal with these same improvements that the Land Commissioners have already provided for. These two contingencies do not seem to be adequately met by the clause, and on that account I wish to insert the words "not previously paid for or otherwise allowed for by the landlord or his predecessors."
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 40, after "family," insert "not previously paid for or otherwise allowed for by the landlord or his predecessors."—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): If the terms of this Bill were the same as those of the Irish Act, declaring that certain improvements were to be excluded, it might have been necessary to accept this Amendment. But, as I stated to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane), all we say in this clause as to improvements is that they shall be taken into consideration. It seems quite obvious that the result of that consideration could never be to allow anything for which compensation has already been given in one form or another. All we say is—"We direct your attention to these improvements;" and the result of that will only be that the Commissioners shall take into account what has not been satisfied in any other shape or form.
      MR. TOMLINSON: It seems the only objection to this Amendment is that the words are not necessary. It is conceded that they could not do any
      546
      harm. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate admits that they carry out the intention of the Bill; and I therefore submit that if there is any possibility of doubting the wording of the clause, or if they can make its meaning clearer, it is desirable to insert the words. Clearly, they carry out the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apprehend that these words would not be necessary if the tribunal that has to decide on the fair rent is a legal tribunal. If it is to be a lay tribunal they would be necessary. If the hon. Member (Mr. W. F. Lawrence) will withdraw the Amendment until we have discussed the tribunal, he may find that the tribunal will be a strong one, and may, consequently, feel it unnecessary to move. If, however, the tribunal is not a strong one, it might be well to put these words in, in order to have the meaning of the Bill beyond all question.
      MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I will follow the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. KIMBER: I beg to move, as an Amendment, the insertion in page 3, line 43, of the following words, after the word "family"—
      "Less by the valued amount of any dilapidation of the holding caused by the crofter or his said predecessors, and also taking into consideration any improvement or contribution of the landlord or his predecessors."
      I have no doubt I shall find amongst the supporters of this Amendment the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane). The hon. Member holds, to my mind without foundation or accuracy, that speakers on this side desire that the Land Commission who will have to carry out this measure shall have excluded from their consideration certain circumstances which it may be necessary to bear in mind in the interest of the tenant. No such suggestion was made from this side. The effect of the words I now propose would be to bring essential considerations before the Land Commission; and no doubt the hon. Member, if he is bonâ fide in his argument, will find it to his interest to support my Amendment. The reasons why the Land Commission should take these things into their consideration are these:

      547
      Apart from the principle that I have before alluded to, that the particularization of a certain matter to be considered by the tribunal excludes or implies the exclusion from their consideration of other matters than those that are particularized, it is only just in this case that we should not only not be silent on the subject of what is to be taken on the other side of the account, but that we should especially name the things that are to be taken in abatement of those matters that are to be allowed to be taken to the credit of the tenant. Now, it is obvious, as was said on a former Amendment, that one part of a croft may be improved, whilst another part may be injured—one building on a croft may be improved, whilst another is allowed to fall into dilapidation. I think the sense of justice of hon. Members all round the House will admit that if a tenant is to have credit for the value of his improvements, he should also have that value debited with any dilapidations which he may have allowed to take place during his tenancy. The second part of my Amendment calls on the Land Commission to take into consideration, that is to say to have regard to, the fact that some of the improvements which may appear physically to exist on the croft, or any contribution which may have been made in times past by the landlord towards improvements which are visible to the eye, but which do not speak for themselves as being the work of the landlord, are really the work of the landlord. The Amendment will require the Commissioners to consider whether or not the improvements which appear to the eye to be then existing on the croft were created wholly or partially by the assistance—either in money or in kind—of the landlord; and I appeal, as I did before, to another part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill in recognition of this principle. I probably did not enforce attention to it as much as I ought to have done, or did not state the case with sufficient clearness on the other Amendment; but if you will refer to Clause 10 you will find that when the Land Commission are assessing the amount of compensation which a tenant is to receive on removal, for his improvements, they are directed thus—
      "In fixing the amount of compensation payable, the value of any assistance or considera-
      548
      tion which may be proved to have been given by the landlord or his predecessors in title in respect of such improvements shall be taken into account, and deducted from such compensation."
      I am only, therefore, proposing to carry into effect, in the ascertainment of the annual value, the same principle of valuation of improvements which is recognized as regards the statutable payment at the end of the tenant's holding. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, when speaking upon this, to explain to the Committee, for our information, why it is that a different valuation of improvements is adopted in one case from that which is adopted in the other? If it is fair to deduct from the amount the tenant is to be paid at the end of the tenancy any contribution on the part of the landlord, surely it is fair that in ascertaining the rent that the tenant is to pay when he is going to continue tenant the annual value of the landlord's improvements, or of his contribution to improvements, should be taken into account. My proposal as to dilapidations is one the justice of which I hope goes without saying. I appeal to the common sense and sense of fairness of hon. Members whether, if they applied it to their own case, and they had a house and a warehouse let to the same tenant, and the tenant, for reasons that appeared good to him, kept the house in repair, and perhaps added a billiard room, but let the warehouse fall into disrepair and decay—I appeal to them, would it be fair that he should be allowed the full value of the improvements he had effected in the house, without having deducted the value of the dilapidations which had taken place in respect of the warehouse? What we want is simply fair play from this tribunal; and I do submit that on the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll, whose sympathies are very large, that if it is fair not to exclude from the consideration of the Commissioners circumstances in favour of the tenant, it is equally not fair to exclude from their consideration circumstances that go to the other side of the account.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 40, after the word "family," insert the words "less by the valued amount of any dilapidation of the holding caused by the crofter or his said predecessors, and also taking

      549
      into consideration any improvement or contribution of the landlord or his predecessors."—(Mr. Kimber.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I will say the same of this, that I did of the last Amendment. It might be appropriate, if you were stating a sort of debtor and creditor account, with a view to bringing out a money balance; but what is to be recollected here is this—The holding is found in an existing condition, primâ facie the property of the landlord, and pirimâ facie the rent would be on the holding as it stands. But that may or may not be the case. It may be that there is something there that belongs to the tenant, and what belongs to the tenant are his improvements. It is necessary to provide that the improvements of the tenant shall not be used as an instrument for raising the rent against himself. The improvements of the landlord will be taken into consideration without question, because they are part of the holding as it stands. Therefore, if the general scheme of the Bill is approved, without binding the Commissioners down to exclude certain things, as was done in the case of the Irish Act, their attention will simply be pointed to what belongs to the tenant, so that all the rest will seem entirely superfluous. The primâ facie case is that the property is the landlord's, and its full value will be taken into account.
      MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The objection of my hon. Friend is one which I am bound to say has a great deal of force in it. The framing of the clause does not confine the attention of the arbiters to the "circumstances of the case," but destroys the perspective of the view by projecting forward the improvements made by the tenants. There is a complete parity of reason between the consideration of the two interests, and if the one is brought forward it seems only reasonable that the other should also be put forward. It ought to be admitted, and I think my right hon. and learned Friend is bound to admit, that the clause is not symmetrical as it stands. I hope the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will, at all events, confirm the view taken by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, that the Commissioners ought to take into con-
      550
      sideration the improvements of the landlord.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The object of the Amendment I have to propose is to—
      "Provide that the Land Commission, in fixing the fair rent, shall not have regard to any profession, trade, or occupation carried on by the tenant on or in connection with the holding."
      If we may judge from past experience, we may expect that the landlord will increase the rent in consequence of improvements made at the public expense. Now, I wish to prevent that, and in order to do so I think that this Proviso should be admitted. We say that the Land Commission ought not to take into account the business or occupation carried on in connection with a building, especially the occupation of fishing.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 41, after "accordingly," insert—"Providing that the Land Commission, in fixing a fair rent, shall not have regard to any profession, trade, or occupation carried on by the tenant on or in connection with the holding."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I am afraid that if we were to introduce this Proviso it would render the valuation of a large number of holdings almost impossible. It has been explained more than once—and it has been made an objection from certain quarters—that the Bill is proposed to apply to any holdings, however small—not limited to £4, £6, or any other amount of rent; and that it extends to a very largo number of small tenants who could not live by the mere cultivation of the holding on which the house may be situated, but who still find it a very convenient and advantageous thing to have a holding whence they can go forth to their various occupations. Now, if the proposal of my hon. Friend were accepted it would come to this—that holdings which were so small that a man could not live by them would have no value at all; but they might have a value to a man to come and live there, and have his home there. I do not know any kind of property with reference to which you are debarred from considering, in valuing the property, the convenience of a man carrying on business there. It is just those things which

      551
      gives value to property. Suppose there is a house in one part of a particular area 10 miles inland, and another in another part close by the sea where there is a good harbour for the convenience of boats and access to a market town; would it be at all right to say that the fishing industry for which the latter part of the area is adopted should not be taken into account? You would render valuation impossible by the adoption of that principle; and, therefore, I submit that it would be misleading, and almost absurd, to introduce an Amendment which would debar you from taking into account a very material element in the valuation which you have to consider.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: But a barrister might be making £10,000 in his chambers; and, so far as the argument of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate is concerned, I think the barrister would complain very justly of the valuers taking that into consideration in fixing the rent of the premises. A man may carry on a profitable fishing business in connection with the house, or a very unprofitable one. I maintain that the value of a house for rent depends upon the cost of its erection, and not upon whether it is occupied by a fisherman, or by a person engaged in cultivating the land. If I had any doubt as to the Amendment before, after the statement of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary that a Proviso should be added to the clause, that the Land Commission should not take into consideration the profession, trade, or occupation carried on in connection with the holding.
      MR. MACFARLANE: I do not quite agree with the theory laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, because it seems to me that the principle of the Bill is that the valuation should be for the agricultural and pastoral use of the land, not for its suitability for residential purposes, or the carrying on of trade. In the case of a person living near the sea shore, and having two or three acres of land, it would seem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman means that the rent should be charged on what the fisherman draws out of the water, and not on what he draws from the land. If that is the view of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate I am quite sure it is not the intention of the Act. The
      552
      case might be that of a fisherman holding land yielding not more than 10 s. a-year, but who draws the worth of £100 out of the sea. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the valuation should be on the latter? We ought to have some explanation of his meaning on that point, because there is absolutely no limit to the charge which the Land Commissioners might make on the produce of the fisherman's nets.
      MR. M'LAREN: Could not the Government devise some words, and bring them up on Repot, which would carry out the views expressed, that the crofter should not be charged extra rent in respect of any business which he might carry on apart from land cultivation? I believe that would have the effect of preventing misunderstanding; and it is, in my opinion, worthy of the attention of the Government.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The real question is, as to whether or not the landlord should have any advantage from the position of his property? It has never been denied to the owner of the soil that he should get the benefit of such position. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) said that every house should be rented according to the cost of erection. Now, I have built a great many houses, and I will only ask the hon. Member if he is prepared to reduce the rent of every house which has been determined on the basis of its being near a railway station, near the centre of a town, or near the sea? I think the hon. Member will perceive, on consideration, that if anyone has a right to benefit by the position of a house it is undoubtedly the landlord, and not the tenant.
      MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: The question is, who increases the value of the property? I think it is the man who starts a business on it; and it is he, in my opinion, who should have the benefit of the business created, and not the landlord.
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: It has nothing to do with the question whether a man is successful or not in business. The question is—what is the value of the house to let in the place where it is situated?—and it would be grossly unfair if houses in the best position should be rented the same as those which are not in so good a position.

      553
      When a person takes a house he considers, in the first instance, whether the house would suit him—he considers the amount of accommodation, the arrangements, and other points. But he likewise considers the suitability of the house for the business he intends to carry on there. Of course, it is not the position of the house alone; it is the accommodation necessary to carry on business there that the fisherman considers; and if that accommodation is due to the circumstances of the place, surely that is a matter to be taken into consideration by the Commissioners in fixing the fair rent. It seems to me almost an outrageous proposition for any hon. Members to put forward that two cottages built in the same way, and fitted up in the same way, but in different parts of the country, should always be rented at the same rate. Then the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) says it ought not to be a question how much a man is to be charged for what he gets out of fishing. But that is not so; he may make nothing at all; but the question is whether the value of the house to him is exactly the same before as after the business was started. The fair rent is fixed according to the locality as well as the value of the house itself, and having regard to other matters.
      DR. CLARK: The Commissioners only found four districts in which they considered that the people were very much rack-rented, and one of those was in the county which I represent. The cause of the rack-renting is that the tenants are paying a rent for fishing, besides the agricultural rent. At first there were small harbours which the people could use, and the houses were all built by them; that is the rule in all cases in the Western Islands. But, unfortunately, those harbours are broken up, and yet the people are still paying £2 or £2 10 s. a-year for land near the sea coast; whereas better land, higher up, does not carry that rent. The rent of that land is 25 s. per acre, because it does not include fishing rent. In the Island of Arran the crofters make their rent from lodgers during the summer season who come from Paisley, Glasgow, Greenock, and other places. The occupiers leave their habitations, and live in out-houses and other places. On the first reading of the Bill I called atten-
      554
      tion to the case of a person who built a house himself, and who, having got a 15 years' lease, had his rent increased from £18 to a very large sum, because he had made additions to it for the accommodation of Glasgow merchants. We want to prevent that in future, both with regard to persons who let their houses during the summer to lodgers, and those who are engaged in fishing. We are going to give some £25,000 or £50,000, I believe, for the construction of harbours on the coasts of Scotland; and, unless this Amendment is agreed to, we believe that the benefit of that money will go to the landlords, instead of the tenants, as fishing rents.
      MR. CONYBEARE: This Bill relates to crofters and agricultural holdings; and it is not, I think, desirable to allow landlords to take double rent; first, for the agricultural use of the holding; and, secondly, for fishing, or any other occupation which the crofters may be carrying on in addition to their agricultural business. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) says that the landlord should have the benefit of any houses built upon their land. They may have done so in times past; but it will not be the case in future. We maintain that people who spend money, or labour in improvements, should have the benefit of their own property until they are paid for it. And when we are dealing with agricultural holdings, it seems to me that there can be no harm in agreeing to an Amendment which is intended to prevent crofts having a double rent raised upon them.
      MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY: I have had some experience in these cases, and I represent a constituency which is nearest to that part of Scotland in which the crofters are chiefly situated. I am aware of instances which have occurred of the kind mentioned. I am acquainted with the case of two holdings, of the same extent and value, and held by two brothers. The one brother improved his holding, and added to the house the business of a grocer; he did a considerable trade, and was charged three times the amount of rent paid by his brother, the crofter, who lives opposite to him, and pays only on the agricultural value of the croft. I can perfectly well conceive that cases

      555
      similar to that should occur in the places we are now dealing with. I understand that it is to meet such cases that this Amendment is proposed, and I think it only just to support it.
      MR. CHANCE: I congratulate the right hon. and learned ex-Lord Advocate on the look of injured innocence and holy horror with which he regarded this Amendment. He seems to think that the landlord has done very much for the country by rescuing it from the barbarism of the Middle Ages. But it appears that the landlords still claim all the birds of the air, and all the fishes of the sea. I wish to point out that the principle against which the right hon. and learned Gentleman contends is already provided for in the section; because it is specifically provided that the Land Commission should consider the circumstances of the case, holding, and district. Practically, in the case of a croft situated near the sea, the Commission would be entitled to consider that fact, and the value in consequence; but the effect of the Amendment would be that while they did that they would not be entitled to consider that the tenant was a fisherman, earning money by fishing. The objection seems to me to be that not only does the landlord want to derive rent from the fact that the croft is near the sea, but also from the fact that the tenant is a fisherman.
      MR. MACFARLANE: I will put a case which will illustrate the position. Two crofters occupy two holdings near the sea, with a harbour within reach; the two crofts are the same in respect of quality of land and characteristics; but one of the crofters has a fishing boat, and the other has not. Now, as to the crofter possessing the fishing boat, would the Commission be entitled to charge him more rent? ["No, no!"] I am glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say "No;" because it is amusing to listen to hon. Gentlemen urging now that the Commission should take into consideration the circumstances of the case to which they had so much objection an hour ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the rent would not be charged specifically on the boats. Of course, it is not fair to assess boats for rent; but you are going to take into account the fact that the crofter lives near the sea, and his power of catching fish. I should like
      556
      to have some assurance that there is no such intention.
      MR. J. WILSON: I think it unnecessary to go on limiting the powers of the Land Commission in this matter; but I hope I may be allowed to beg the Committee to make some progress with the Bill, if there is any intention that it should be passed this Session. We have not yet got through more than three pages of Amendments out of 23, and we are only on Clause 6. Let us come to a decision upon this question as soon as possible; and I trust that hon. Gentlemen will be as brief as they can in their remarks, so that some progress may be made.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite are conclusive in favour of this Amendment, inasmuch as they have laid down the principle that a landlord is entitled to rent for the sea as well as for the land. That is what I object to; and, as a matter of fact, all round the coast of Caithness, landlords are exacting rents altogether disproportionate to the land, and which would not be paid, were it not that the land is near the sea. I am anxious to make progress with the Bill; but I am bound to say that the responsibility for the delay which may take place lies with Her Majesty's Government. I am one of those who think the Bill almost worthless; and, unless we succeed in amending it, it is of very little consequence whether it passes or not. We feel that, unless we draw attention to the illusory character of the provisions of the measure, we should be incurring the grave responsibility of being parties to a Bill which will not carry out what it professes to do.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 195: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 58.)
      MR. T. BLAKE: I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. Blake.)
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I wish to make an appeal to the Committee to go on a little longer, in order that we

      557
      may make some further progress with the Bill.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that there are one or two Amendments which might very well be taken to-night if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. Blake) will withdraw his Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. CONYBEARE: I would remind the Committee that there is another Bill coming on—the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill—in which a great many Members take an interest; and I trust, therefore, that Progress will be reported very shortly.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I beg, Sir, to move the following Amendment:—
      In page 3, line 41, at the end of sub-section (1), insert—"Provided that when not fewer than twenty tenants, holding of the same landlord within the same parish, shall conjointly petition the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, the Land Commission shall after due notice visit the locality, and after hearing parties may, if they see fit, make a general order to reduce by an uniform percentage the rents of the whole of the petitioners, or of such of their number as shall be specified in such order."
      By this machinery a good deal of difficulty which may arise will be got over, and, in the event of the landlord and tenant not being able to agree, the Land Commission could be called in to decide what the fair rent ought to be. The provisions of the Bill are somewhat cumbersome, and the object of the Amendment is to enable the Commissioners to get through their work quickly, which will be to the advantage both of the landlords and of the tenants. In the West Highlands rents have frequently been increased all over estates by certain percentages, and the Amendment only enables that process to be reversed. I make the proposition because I think it will induce agreements to be made between landlord and tenant.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 41, at the end of sub-section (1), insert—"Provided that when not fewer than twenty tenants, holding of the same landlord within the same parish, shall conjointly petition the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, the Land Commission shall after due notice visit the locality, and after hearing parties may, if they see fit, make a general order to reduce by an uniform percentage the rents of the whole of the petitioners, or of such of their number as shall be specified in such order."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I really do not think that this Amendment is necessary for the purpose of enabling the Commission to make an order in such a form as the hon. Member desires. Further, I hardly think it is quite consistent with what we have already done. It might be said that, although we first of all told the Commissioners to have regard to the special circumstances of each case, we next told them to dispose of the cases en bloc.
      Question put, and negatived.
      DR. CLARK: The Amendment which I propose to move is practically a new clause, and it is a very important one. It is this—
      In page 3, at end of sub-section (1), insert—"The Court shall schedule with their order a table of the average price of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool in the county in which the holding is situated, during the year immediately preceding the one in which the order is made. Should prices during any year afterwards rise above or fall below more than ten per cent the average determined for the year previous to the fixing of the rent, the rent paid by the occupier of the holding shall, during such year, rise or fall in proportion to the rise or fall in the average prices of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool. And the Act of Sederunt of the twenty-first day of December, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-three, is hereby amended, in order to provide that the sheriffs' fiars in the counties in which this Bill shall apply shall strike the average wholesale prices of potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool in the said counties."
      The Irish Land Act has been a dead failure for two reasons; first, because there is a fixed scale which, in consequence of certain things, has become a very unfair rent; and, second, because there was no provision made for the rise and fall of produce. My Amendment, therefore, is for the purpose of preventing in the Highlands a fixed rent, and to have inserted that the rent shall be determined on prices. I may say that this system which I am recommending has been in existence for years. In some parts of Scotland the Sheriff each year determines the average price of corn, and upon that the rent is fixed. We have already the machinery by which these prices can be obtained in what are called the Sheriffs' fiar's scores; and, therefore, I submit there can be no

      559
      objection to adopting this course. The Courts now meet for the purpose of striking one price; but the Amendment will compel them to strike the average prices of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool, by having a rent which is not fixed, but is arranged on the sliding scale according to the prices of these articles. No injury could be done to the tenant or to the landlord. I cannot see that any injury could be done to the landlord. I am told that as the rents of the crofters are very small. The Amendment will be of no practical good; but, although the rents may be very small, I assure the Committee it is a very important thing for a tenant to find the prices have fallen 40 per cent. as they have done in my county during the last four months. The old system of paying rents in the Highlands is payment in kind. And now you are going to fix a fair rent, I suppose a portion of the payment will be made in kind. Well, all this Amendment will do will be to fix a rent, which will be fair to the landlord and fair to the tenant, to be paid in kind, and the only means by which this can be done is by taking into consideration the rise and fall of prices.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, at end of sub-section (1), insert—"The Court shall schedule with their order a table of the average price of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool in the county in which the holding is situated, during the year immediately preceding the one in which the order is made. Should prices during any year afterwards rise above or fall below more than ten per cent the average determined for the year previous to the fixing of the rent, the rent paid by the occupier of the holding shall, during such year, rise or fall in proportion to the rise or fall in the average prices of grain, potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool. And the Act of Sederunt of the twenty-first day of December, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-three, is hereby amended, in order to provide that the sheriffs' fiars in the counties in which this Bill shall apply shall strike the average wholesale prices of potatoes, beef, mutton, dairy produce, and wool in the said counties."—(Dr. Clark.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I have very considerable sympathy with the object proposed to be effected by this Amendment, because I am of opinion that there can be no such just method of arriving at a fair rent as by having
      560
      regard to the price which the produce of the holding realizes at the time. Undoubtedly, when the whole rent is to be paid in money, the result is, as we have seen during recent years, that it may become impossible, in consequence of the fall in prices, for the tenant to pay the rent. The only thing that I have a doubt about is, whether the Amendment will not be rather too complicated to be appropriate to such small holdings as those which are chiefly dealt with in this Bill. It might be applicable with advantage to holdings of £30 or over, if we were only dealing with such cases; but, as I have before pointed out, the enormous proportion of these holdings are under £4—many of them being holdings of 25 s. and the like—and instead of these small tenants knowing each year what they have to pay, and the landlord what he has to get, they would have to enter into an actuarial calculation to work out the proportion upon these very small figures, and I am afraid that that might lead to considerable difficulty. That is the only consideration which makes me object to the Amendment; and if there is a practical way of solving that difficulty I shall be glad to entertain it. If, however, the Committee should think that the scheme will be reasonably practical for small holdings, I am willing to submit; but, at the same time, I am bound to say that I fear it is not practical.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely share the sympathy of the right hon. and learned Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) in regard to this Amendment; but there are other difficulties besides those which he has mentioned which we ought not to lose sight of. There are other circumstances which ought not to be forgotten. In the first place, we cannot regard these small holdings as we regard farms which are worked solely with a view to the sale of the whole of their produce; for, in a great many cases, these small crofters consume the majority of their crops, and it is quite a matter of indifference to them whether the price of that produce is high, or whether it is low. In fact, the smaller crofters send to market hardly any of the commodities with which the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is concerned. Then there is another point which is of even greater importance, and that is the fact that the

      561
      crofts do not produce the large variety of articles named in the Amendment as those which are to form the subject of the average which is to be struck. The hon. Member says that an average can be struck on these varied articles of agricultural produce; but some crofts will only produce potatoes, others will only produce oats, barley, or wool, or other produce of that kind, and the mere fact that they do not produce the same description of crops will render the scheme of the hon. Member wholly unworkable. I think it is better, therefore, not to adopt the Amendment.
      MR. THOROLD ROGERS: I also have an Amendment down on the Paper on this subject. I think that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) will go to the trouble of looking at the principles of the Tithe Commutation Act, and of its working, which are based upon the principle contained in this Amendment, he will find that there are many who pay those tithes who are paying far less sums of money than many of these crofters have to pay as rent. There are tithe rent-charges based upon rents as low as 30 s. a-year. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has told us that the crofter consumes all he produces; but, however that may be, he has to pay his rent all the same. The question is, what is the value of a pound sterling to him from what he produces, and what is the value of that pound sterling to him when he has to pay his rent? What I have to say is this—that if this system of fixing the rent according to the prices of the produce had been introduced into the Irish Land Act of 1881, all the difficulties which have arisen in regard to that Act would have been obviated. Now, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has told us that there is a difficulty in regard to the details of a scheme such as this. Now, it has always occurred to me that one of the uses of the lawyers that we have in this House is that they should interpret into their own jargon what is the sense of the House of Commons, and I should imagine that they would be able to work out the details on this question. I venture upon saying that if my right hon. and learned Friend were to ask those persons who are at present engaged collecting the average prices of produce,
      562
      he would find that the application of this system to very small rents, instead of being a difficult rule-of-three, as he seems to suppose, would be one of the easiest things possible. Very small rents can be paid in money value payable in kind, and I want to see that system introduced. Payment should be made upon the value of what the agriculturist procures. I argued some time ago that it would be impossible to settle the Irish Land Question unless we settled it upon the principle of tithe-rent averages. The only fault is the length of time over which the tithe-rent averages are carried; but shorten that period, and I think the difficulties will all be removed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some assurance that he will consider this matter I think the matter might now be left over to Report. With regard to this system, I am of opinion that the difficulties are small; that the conveniences are great; that the interpretation is easy; and I venture to say that the results will be good. I think I may venture to say that I have the warmest approval of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) in this matter; and I hope my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will see that the system is a desirable one.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I have been watching for the introduction of this Amendment for a long time, because I think it is the natural and logical sequel of any attempt at the assessment of rent. For my own part, I am opposed in principle to the assessment of rents as proposed in this Bill, because I think it would be better to stick to simple contract and short notices between landlord and tenant; but if you assess the rent, you ought also to assess the value of the produce of the soil on which the rent is raised; and I do not see how the principle is to work, unless we adopt in some form the proposal which has been made by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). I do not think, however, that the words he has proposed will work out without further addition and extension; I think it would be more satisfactory, therefore, if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would look into this question, and bring up an Amendment on Report, which would embody the principle in a practical method of carrying it out.
      MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: For my part, I venture to submit to the Committee that this Amendment comprises a very valuable suggestion, and I do not think it is open to the objections which have been stated against it by the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour). The right hon. Member's arguments appear to me to amount to this—he urged that the proposal was not a suitable one in regard to the large proportion of the produce of the crofts which is consumed by the crofter; but, if that is so, I venture to think that the crofter ought not to pay at all, because it is only after what is to be consumed has been consumed that the question of rent should arise at all. I do not think that the rent ought to be paid out of the fishing of a crofter, and we are to assume that it ought to be paid out of the croft itself. It is upon the surplus which a crofter has after he has fed himself and his family that the question of rent arises at all. It should only be upon that part of the produce which goes to market that the element of value should enter, and the question of rent arise; and, therefore, that part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground altogether. Then his second objection is that the crofters do not produce the same things. Well, the remedy for that is easy; and I think that the matter is dealt with in an Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers), which provides that the rent shall be paid in produce—in so much meal, in so much oats, or so much corn. The precedent of the tithe-rent charges shows that the very smallest sums can be estimated. The principle is a natural one, and, so far from being inapplicable to small holdings, I think it is particularly suitable for them. I therefore hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will accept the principle of the Amendment, and that he will undertake to adjust the clause before the Report stage of the Bill is taken.
      COLONEL NOLAN: I think that the principle of the Amendment is an exceedingly desirable one; but, at the same time, it appears to me that the details will require some amendment.
      MR. GOSCHEN: There is just one point in connection with this matter which I should like to see cleared up, and it is this. Does not the ability of the tenant to pay rent very often depend as much on the quantity of produce he obtains as upon the price which it fetches? When the prices are high the crofter is to pay a higher rent; but these prices may be high on account of the scarcity of the produce he is selling. He may have so little to sell that the high prices will not recoup his loss; and the consequence may be that the period of high prices may be a time of pressure on the tenant; so that it may be very difficult for him to pay the high rent, and vice versâ. A sliding scale, therefore, might have the opposite effect to that which the hon. Gentleman desires. I think it is worth considering whether that might not be the effect of the principle which has been suggested. The point is worth considering, at least, although I do not insist upon it.
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: It would be impossible to frame clauses to meet every difficulty which may arise; but with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), whose opinion is always valuable, it is a fact that when prices are high the farmer generally is benefited by them. I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will withdraw his objection to the Amendment. My right hon. Friend who sits below me (Mr. A. J. Balfour) appears to think that this is a novel principle; but I venture to say that there is nothing novel about it. It is quite a primitive system; and I cannot help thinking that if the system of sliding rents had not been universally abandoned as it has been, a great many of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to the management of land might have been avoided. I would urge the Committee to look favourably upon the Amendment; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) does not feel able to accept it at once, at all events I hope he will take it into consideration, and see if it cannot be brought up in some form at a later stage. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman based his objection to the Amendment on the difficulty of the calcu-

      565
      lation in regard to small holdings; but that calculation has to be made annually already for other purposes, and I think it could easily be applied to the matter of rent.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): It appears to me that we have entered into a matter which it is very difficult to discuss at this time of night. I am afraid that it will be impossible to work the plan of the hon. Member (Dr. Clark) exactly as it stands—to make it compulsory to pay by grain, or wheat, or whatever it may be. My own impression is, the existing fiar's system ought to be extended so as to cover the prices of barley and oats, and beef and mutton, and that the Commissioners ought to be allowed to decide on one or the other, having regard to the circumstances of the holding. In Scotland a half-grain half-money system of fixing rent has prevailed; but changing circumstances favour first one and then the other. Therefore, I do think that it is an exceedingly difficult question—first, whether you are to fix the rents in money or in produce; and, secondly, if you are to fix them for 15 years or any longer period. That, I believe, is the rock on which the Irish Land Act has split; because, since 1881, there has been a complete revolution in prices. If the Government can arrange for this matter to be postponed till a later stage I shall be very glad.
      MR. THOROLD ROGERS: The only way you can ask the crofter to pay rent on a fair basis is to enable him to pay it in accordance with the price that he has got for it. By doing this, we shall get rid of the theory that the cause of the losses to the tenants is the result of the extortion of the landlords. The losses to the tenants would then be due to the prices in the market, or to bad seasons; and, therefore, I earnestly hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will be able to see his way to deal with this matter.
      DR. CLARK: I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment with the consent of the Committee, in order that the matter may be brought up again on Report.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Macfarlane,)—put, and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. John Morley, Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 155.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It is not necessary, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time, that I should detain the House at any length in stating the circumstances that justify the proposals that I have to lay before the House. In 1883 Parliament passed an Act for the relief of certain distressed Unions in the West of Ireland, the provision being for a grant out of the Church Surplus Fund not exceeding £50,000 in all. Under the operation of that Act only £10,352 15 s. was actually granted, and the operation of the Act came to its legal end. Unfortunately, the necessity for relief in the West of Ireland, which moved Parliament in 1883, has not passed away. It is well known to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, and to many Englishmen and Scotchmen, that the distress in parts of the Western Unions and districts of Ireland is at this moment most acute and extreme. The distress arises, in the first place, from the failure of the potato crop, followed by the impossibility of getting a market for cattle, and also from the failure of credit. I need not quote figures to prove that very great poverty exists in the Unions mentioned in the Schedule of this Bill; but I may say that the resources of these Unions are absolutely unable to bear the pressure of any further rate. The proposals of the Bill are two. First, it revives the two expired sections of the Act of 1883, subject to some slight modifications, and empowers the Local Government Board to make grants not exceeding the unexpired balance of £40,000 of the Act of 1883. But no grant will be made unless the Local Government Board, in consideration of the financial condition of the Union, and after considering the pressure of distress on its resources, is convinced of the abso-

    567
    lute necessity of the grant; and no grant will be made under the Bill after the 31st of March, 1887. The second proposal goes beyond the Act of 1883, in what, I admit, is a very important particular indeed; for we ask Parliament to relax the strictness of the existing laws in respect of the grant of outdoor relief, not only in the scheduled Unions, but all over Ireland. The law since 1862, as hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland are well aware, is that no person in the occupation of more than a quarter of an acre of land can receive relief, except in the workhouse. I now propose, subject to certain restrictive provisions, that relief shall be given to destitute persons out of the workhouse, even though they occupy more than a quarter of an acre of land. The restrictive provisions are these—first, that such relief is only to be given where the Local Government Board authorize the Boards of Guardians to give it by their order; secondly, that the order is only to be made for a couple of months at a time, though it may be renewed; thirdly—and this is a very important restriction—the relief is to be given in food only, and not in money; and, fourthly, this power is only to remain in force until the 31st of December, 1886. I would only add that this relaxation in the matter of outdoor relief in the Southern Unions is rather designed by us as a measure of precaution, in case the necessity should become very pressing, and not with any intention of setting it into operation at once, except in these particularly distressed electoral divisions on the West Coast. With these few remarks I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. John Morley.)
    COLONEL NOLAN: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland extremely for the measure he has brought in. I know every one of these five scheduled Unions; three of them I am intimately acquainted with, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in these districts such relief as he proposes is wanted very badly. I do not know whether the House knows it, but in two of these Unions which have been very prominently before the public lately, which include the Islands of Achill,
    568
    Boffin, and the Arran Islands, the people became distressed through two opposite reasons. In Achill the crops failed for want of seed; but in Arran they failed for a very peculiar reason. The ground is very shallow there, very often the soil being only two or three inches deep. The summer was extremely hot, and the heat of the sun burnt up all the potatoes. More than that, very boisterous weather has visited the Island, and I have it from one of the Fishery Inspectors that the people have been unable to carry on the industry of fishing. Though these scheduled Unions are extremely badly off, there are Unions contiguous to them which, though not so much distressed, are still wretchedly poor. There are two or three electoral divisions, such as Tuam and Loughrea, which deserve to be put in the same category as the scheduled Unions, and which, if they were included, would find it much to their advantage. The general scope of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is extremely satisfactory, and removes a great blot upon the existing regulations. At present, in cases where the head of family occupies a holding of two or three acres, it is impossible to give relief in the ordinary way, no matter to what extent it may be needed, no matter how much sickness there may be in the house, or to what depth of distress the people may be reduced. Of course, things cannot go on in this way. Though the Guardians themselves are unable to give relief in these cases the Relieving Officers are able to do it. Occasionally, I know, they used to do it, and the Guardians used to recoup them for it; indeed, the Guardians used to tell them that if they did distribute such relief they would be recouped. This sort of thing did not, of course, take place on a large scale; for, if it had, it would have been extremely irregular. However, this great blot in the existing Poor Law in Ireland will be removed by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. I sincerely hope that the measure may be passed through expeditiously. It will produce the very best effect, especially when amended in one or two particulars. Though it is a good Bill it is not everything. We want something else—something in the nature of public works in the West of Ireland.
    MR. DILLON: The few observations I feel bound to make on

    569
    this Bill I think I ought to preface by thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland very heartily. I am bound to say that, so far as I understand the condition of the West of Ireland, this is a sterling generous provision for the necessities of the people there. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that in the few observations I feel it necessary to make my desires and objects are twofold; in the first place, that relief should reach the people who are absolutely in need of it as soon as possible, and as effectually as possible, particularly in the West; and, secondly, that there should be the greatest possible economy, and no abuse of the use of this Act. I believe myself that, as was found to be the case in 1883, the whole of the money the right hon. Gentleman places at our disposal will not be necessary if the Bill is properly used. I will point out what I consider would be a great improvement in the Bill. We all desire to see it passed through Committee and brought into operation as soon as possible; but I would suggest that if the Chief Secretary can see his way to the insertion of a small sub-section in Section 3, granting to the Lord Lieutenant the same discretion as there is a precedent for in the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, with regard to the manner in which the Commissioners of Public Works are entitled to make grants, he should do it. In the 20th section of the Arrears of Rent Act they are entitled to grant loans to any Union, or such other body or persons, and on such terms as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may think proper. That seems to me to form a very excellent precedent; and what I desire to carry out by the insertion of such a sub-section I will point out. We know that in some cases, in the remote districts where the people are now actually starving, there are relief committees in existence. In the Island of Achill, I am told, most effectual relief is now being given by one of these relief committees. In consists of the parish priest and the Protestant minister of the Island, who are working in perfect harmony, I am happy to say. Mr. Tuke himself has been there, and is favourably impressed with what has been done, Achill is 35 miles from Westport, where the Union meets; it is, therefore, desirable that this relief
    570
    should be distributed in food where it is wanted, and not sent down to the Union. I am sure Mr. Tuke, who is on the spot, would give the same advice to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that I give him hero, and as anybody will who knows the district. I would suggest that he should make the relief committee at Achill—who are unquestionably above everything in the shape of maladministration, although it would be necessary to require the keeping of a most strict account as to the people to whom the relief is given—the distributors of this relief. I am prepared to leave the matter to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, as advised by the Inspectors of the Local Government Board; but I would urge that he should be allowed, in his discretion, to advance money. Money would reach the distressed people more promptly, and there would be less danger of waste and of maladministration than would be the case in the adoption of other forms of relief. This would be by far the best way of relieving people who are actually hungry. And I think it would probably be possible to treat all the Islands in the same way. The Westport Guardians have no machinery for the proper distribution of relief amongst the people of this Island of Achill. It would take a fortnight to reach the people—and it is obviously out of the question for these people to come into Westport to receive it. The Island of Clare is a long way off, as also are the Islands of Boffin and Innistock. In some cases the distressed districts are 40 miles from the place where the Guardians meet. I wish to make another observation. There is a gentleman named Brady, one of the Fishery Commissioners, who has exerted himself in the most praiseworthy manner to relieve these people. This gentleman has got not alone the confidence of the people, but a knowledge of these matters, which none of the Guardians can have, for they are for the most part business men, who cannot spend their time going about amongst the people as Mr. Brady does. He has not only got the confidence of the Guardians and of the people, but of the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin; therefore it is likely, if this discretion is given to the Lord Lieutenant, that he may instruct Mr. Brady and Mr. Tuke to carry out useful relief in these Islands. We, and all

    571
    persons interested in the relief of this distressed population, are united in this opinion—that, except where families are in sickness from the depth of their poverty, it would be less demoralizing to distribute the relief through the assistance of such gentlemen as those I have named than the Guardians. I think, at any rate, the Lord Lieutenant might be left to act on his own discretion, assisted by the Local Government Board. I think a certain amount of this money—after the necessary amount of food has been afforded to this starving population—might, under the direction of Mr. Brady and Mr. Take, and the local gentlemen with whom they act or are in communication, be made to confer great benefit on these people by being spent on the improvement of piers. With these few suggestions, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to adopt, I will conclude by urging him to put down the Committee on the Bill for as early a day as he can.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am as anxious as anyone to avoid the demoralization which attaches to the distribution of relief in money, and to see this relief is given, as much as possible, in kind; but I would point out that in places like the Island of Arran, which is 40 miles away from Galway, it would be more economical to give a few shillings to the people than to give the money's worth in food. The people would be much better able to buy their own bread stuffs than the Guardians could buy it and send it out to them. In the same way, Achill is 30 or 40 miles from Westport, and 1s. in money to one of the starving people there would go a great deal farther than if spent for him by the Guardians—probably, if spent by the Guardians, every 1s. the poor receive will cost the Guardians 1s. 4d., for it would cost a great deal to send the relief in kind across the Channel from the mainland. I have never been able to understand why the Islands of Arran have been allowed to be attached to the Galway Union. It has always appeared to me that it would be much easier for the people of those places to run into Clifden, the journey by sea being much shorter. With regard to the clause dealing with the quarter-of-an-acre provision, it seems to me that such a clause should be rendered permanent. The provision was
    572
    passed in the days of Sir William Gregory, at a time when so much was said about political economy. But the political theories of that day are dead and gone for ever. We have got a long way beyond that age. You even treat the labourers now with some measure of justice and generosity. Of course, English Members will understand that we are getting this money out of an Irish fund. I cannot help pointing out the extraordinary contrast there is in the manner in which we are getting it to the manner in which we used to obtain measures from former Governments. I attribute to this change the peacefulness and orderly demeanour of the people of Ireland, who know now that they have a sympathetic power at the head of affairs. I cannot help contrasting the present state of affairs with that which prevailed in 1883. In that year the people of Tralee were told practically that they might starve, or go to the workhouse. I think the right hon. Gentleman, as well as Ireland, is to be congratulated on the existing state of things.
    MR. SEXTON: The Bill as it stands, if it is well administered, will do a considerable amount of good. At the same time, I am bound to express great regret that the measure is limited in the extent of its duration, and that in it the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give assistance to the distressed population in no other method than by way of charity. If the people in the West of Ireland who are now suffering from distress were able to look forward to the coming harvest with confidence the scope of the Bill would be sufficient; but many of the people have beeen unable to sow their crops during the present spring, and these will have to look forward to casual employment as a means of subsistence. I think, therefore, that, in order to have been adequate to the occasion, the Bill should have contained provisions to enable these people to seed their ground. If the Bill is allowed to run to June, 1887, those people who have lost their crops this year will be able to live until they can crop their land again next spring. Unless this is done, if it can be proved that continued relief is necessary next year, it will be necessary to come forward and ask for another measure in 1887. I think that should be avoided, if possible,

    573
    and that we should do the thing at once. I trust that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) will be favourably considered. The Government method of distributing relief, through the Guardians, is a method neither the most efficient nor the most economical; and, on the other hand, these local committees that the hon. Gentleman has spoken of are composed of people of zeal, who are able to bring intelligence and judgment to bear upon the case. I trust that something will be done in the way of amending the Schedule of the Relief Act of 1880, and of allowing the relief committees to administer part of the funds to the poor in these districts. I have felt most acute disappointment at the absence from the Bill of anything to make provision for the construction of boat slips or piers in the Western Islands. Mr. Tuke, and those with whom he has acted, the local clergy, and the Press of Ireland, all look upon that as the only true way to relieve the Western Islands. To allay existing pangs of hunger the Bill will be sufficient, no doubt; but in the Western Islands these periods of distress are recurrent; and careful critics who go into this matter very fully declare that the only way to give these poor people anything like real and lasting relief is to build them a few boat slips or piers. That will not be giving them money, consequently it will not injure their self-respect, and will not demoralize them, whilst it will give them an effectual means of maintaining themselves. I do trust the Board of Works, or some other Department, will have a moderate sum placed in its hands which, if no demands are made for it, they may share out to the most distressed localities for boat slips. I trust, further, that there will be no restrictions enacted in the clauses which will prevent any relief that may be given being given promptly. If there are to be restrictions framed by the Local Government Board, the Board are likely to frame restrictions which will do away with the usefulness of the measure. There is an open sea-board in County Donegal, and the population living upon it, thousands and tens of thousands of them, are in the deepest distress. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot include this one district in the Schedule? Then there is an omission
    574
    from the Bill. The Act of 1880 contained a provision for giving relief in fuel, which is as necessary as relief in food; but no such provision is contained in this Bill. In the Western Islands there are no means of obtaining fuel locally, and the people, in seasons of distress, suffer keenly from the want of it. I hope that omission is an inadvertence.
    MR. P. J. POWER: I hope that the Government will promise to accede to the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy), who now represents, I think, South Derry; but he has been chosen by so many constituencies that one is liable to forget for which constituency he has elected to sit. I speak with some experience on the subject of this Bill; and I can assure the House that in many places the poor would prefer to receive 1s. 6d. in money to 2s. 6d. in kind. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will see his way to accepting the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend; and I feel certain that if he does the Bill will work to the good of the people.
    LORD FREDERICK HAMILTON: I merely rise for the purpose of saying a few words to endorse the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as to the necessity for the construction of boat slips and piers or small harbours of refuge on the West Coast of Ireland. No one who has been there and has seen the miserably inadequate accommodation that exists for the fishermen can have any other idea than that works of that character for the relief of the distress of the people cannot assume a more useful form than boat slips, piers, or harbours.
    MR. CLANCY: I think that a provision should be inserted in the Bill by which it would be clearly understood that those accepting relief under the measure shall not lose their rights under the Franchise Act. An exceptional measure of this kind should contain no disfranchising clauses; and unless such a provision as I refer to is inserted, a large number of people will lose the right of voting at Parliamentary elections.
    MR. O'HEA: I have only a few words to address to the House on this occasion. I observe in the Bill, that there are only five Unions

    575
    mentioned, and I think that having regard to the amount of distress which exists in Ireland at present the measure should have a wider extension and scope. It is a well-known fact that in the Southern parts of Ireland, as well, also, as in other parts of the country, there is very great distress. In the county of Donegal there are Unions and electoral divisions which deserve to be included within the scope and operation of the Bill quite as much as those Unions which are scheduled. I would wish to get from the Chief Secretary for Ireland an assurance that some of the districts I refer to would also reap the advantages that this measure is meant to confer. In the Northern parts of Ireland, in the county of Donegal, there are Unions, notably that of Dunfanaghy, in which the district of Gweedore is situated, where the people are perpetually fighting the desperate battle of life with seaweed—who have only this miserable food to protect them from absolute famine and starvation. I hope that this Bill is intended for the purpose of mitigating the sufferings of the people of these districts that I may call famine-stricken districts, and that they will be included within the scope and operation of this Bill before the House. I should like to get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that these districts will be included, With the general principle of the Bill we all agree; but why these districts which are so exceptionally visited with hardship and starvation should be omitted I do not know. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to inform the House that he is in a position to include these districts in addition to the five he has mentioned in this Bill.
    MR. P. M'DONALD: I will not trouble the House at this period with more than a very few words. I fully endorse everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), as to the desirability of doing something in this Bill to facilitate the construction of piers and harbours and ordinary boat slips. That I believe would be a most suitable method of relieving the distress. I would again draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a case which has come under my own observation, that of Innishmurry Island. I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it, and
    576
    since then, and after receiving his reply, I received a communication with regard to it from a gentleman with whom I am totally unacquainted. I will only read one extract from this letter. It says that the memorial referred to was signed by Dr. Gilhooly, as Bishop of the diocese in which the Island is situated, who was conversant by personal experience with the truth of the facts stated. It was also signed by Dr. Healy, another local Bishop. I have merely to say that the gentleman who has so written to me seems to be perfectly alive to the necessity of carrying out the work I refer to. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that this will be the best form in which public money can be spent.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): By the permission of the House I desire to say that I will give my best attention to the suggestions that have been made. A provision with regard to boats slips and piers would have occupied no inconsiderable amount of time, and as there was no time to be lost it was not included in the Bill. The object in view, however desirable, must—as I am at present advised—be the subject of future legislation. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I do not like, without more mature consideration, to accept it. I will do the best I can; and I believe we may find some means of giving effect to it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  PRISON OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL.— [BILL 154.]
  (Sir Edward Reed, Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  PRISON OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL.— [BILL 154.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE LORD OF THE TREASURY: (Sir EDWARD J. REED): This Bill, of which I rise to move the second reading, is little more than a Declaratory Bill. The Naval Discipline Act of 1879 distinguished between offences of a military and ordinary character, and a certain portion of the prisons were appropriated for the former. A question then

    577
    arose whether the Regulations of the Secretary of State of 1877 were applicable to those prisons which had passed to the control of the Army and Navy authorities. One of the consequences was that certain officers have been deprived of their pensions, and it is to rectify that that the present Bill is introduced.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Edward J. Reed.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it right that the officers who do the work should be remunerated; but the action of the Government in this matter is unequal—they seem to single out a certain class of officers for pensions. Officers in lunatic asylums, for instance, are treated in quite a different manner from others. I am glad the Bill has been introduced; but I think that the Government should deal with the Public Service in this respect as a whole and upon one principle.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.— [BILL 26.]
  (Mr. Charles James, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Stafford Howard, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Mellor.)
  COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.— [BILL 26.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd March.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 5 (Consequence of lord's failure to give notice).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES JAMES, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 14, after "enrolment," insert "or death or alienation;" and in line 15, after "steward," insert "nor shall the land be liable to escheat or forfeiture to the lord."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Mode and costs of ascertaining compensation if not ascertained under preceding provisions).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES JAMES, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 14, at end, add—
    "The Commissioners shall have power to extend the period of six months hereinbefore men-
    578
    tioned as they shall see fit, on the joint application of the lord and tenant."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 7, 8, and 9, severally agreed to.
    Clause 10 (As to duties of valuer and umpire).
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: I rise to move the omission from the clause of the words which provide that the valuers shall in every case deliver the details of the valuation to the Commissioners, who, if it appears to them incorrect, may remit the valuation for reconsideration and correction; and if the valuer neglects or refuses to amend the valuation, the Commissioners may determine the value of the various rights and incidents at such sum as they may deem just and reasonable. I trust the Committee will accept the Amendment. Why the Commissioners should revise the decision of the valuers I cannot understand. It is most natural to suppose that the best person as valuer will be chosen, and that he will be perfectly conversant with the facts of the case. The Commission, I imagine, will not have an opportunity of viewing the land; and any steps taken to ascertain the value of the manorial rights and incidents would involve great additional trouble and expense. The natural result of this rule being followed would be that the Commissioners would go by what I may call rule of thumb, which would act very unfairly; and in this I speak as much on behalf of the copyhold tenant as the lord.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 32, to leave out all after "to prescribe" to the end of the Clause.—(Viscount Grimston.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR): I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. The object of the clause is very plain. It was inserted by the Committee because it was found that in many cases the valuations had been excessive; and it was suggested that in the cases described the Commissioners should examine the valuation, and, if necessary, send it back to the valuer.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: Clause 11 gives the Commissioners power to frame and publish a scale of compen-

    579
    sation; and unless they have the opportunity of revising the decisions arrived at between the valuers it would be useless to give them the power of fixing a scale of compensation. Clause 11 is, to a certain extent, associated with Clause 10; and if this Amendment were agreed to, the two clauses would have to be reconstructed.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: It seems to me that if this clause makes the valuation of the valuer useless we had better confine ourselves to the valuation of the Commission.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Commissioners to publish a scale of compensation).
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: I suggest that it would be desirable, at a later stage of the Bill, to put in words to control the discretion of the Commissioners.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Unless the hon. Member has an Amendment to move before the next on the Paper he is out of Order in his remarks.
    On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES JAMES, the following Amendments made:—In page 5, lines 1 and 8, after "shall," leave out "from time to time;" and in line 10, at end, add—"The Commissioners may, from time to time, vary any such, scales."
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: I venture to suggest that, at some later stage of the Bill, we should place some control on the absolute discretion of the Commissioners to frame and publish a scale of compensation. If a clause were inserted that every scale of compensation should be laid upon the Table of the House, and not be operative until a certain time had elapsed, I think it would be only imposing a wholesome restriction upon this very arbitrary power which is vested in the Commissioners. This scale is one which, although it is in the nature of a recommendation, will practically fix the amount of compensation; and it is desirable, when you are giving such great power to Commissioners, that they should be
    580
    under a sense of responsibility. Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill the desirability of insuring, in some form, that this wide discretion should be exercised with care and judgment. I have no doubt of the desire to do justice on the part of the Commissioners; but, as it is quite unprecedented to give such a power as the clause confers upon them, I suggest that it should be limited in the direction which I have indicated.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 12 and 13 severally agreed to.
    Clause 14 (In case of death proceedings not to abate).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES JAMES, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 5, after "eighty," leave out "five," and insert "six."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Compensation to be secured by rent-charge).
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: It would be hard on the lord that there should be power to create a rent-charge where the amount is so low as £2 per annum; and my object is to prevent the creation of a multitude of small rent-charges. It is well known that the steward receives certain fees for collecting quit-rents; but when this Bill becomes law the lord will have to pay another person for collecting these charges, and, practically, the major part of the amount of the rent-charge would be swallowed up in the cost of collection.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 28, after "award," insert "if it exceeds the sum of fifty pounds such, compensation."—(Viscount Grimston.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: This is one of a series of Amendments to the clause, and its effect is to introduce an entirely new principle in connection with the enfranchisement of copyhold. The effect of the Amendment is to impose upon the tenant, when compelled to enfranchise, the liability to pay money down in lieu of a rent-charge. ["No, no!"] The noble Viscount denies that; but such is the effect of his Amendment. Instead of the lord receiving a small rent-charge, he is to receive a capital sum. The noble Viscount

    581
    proposes that the lord is to receive a sum of money down, or, in effect, larger compensation than would otherwise be awarded to him. That is introducing altogether a new principle in the law of enfranchisement, to the benefit of the lord and at the charge of the tenant; and it is one to which, in my opinion, the Committee ought not to assent. It is admitted by the noble Viscount that it gives an advantage to the lord, and I submit that such ought not to be given.
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: But I say that the advantage to the lord would disappear. There is a clause in the Bill under which the copyhold tenant can raise money for the purpose of paying off the lord, which would enable him to do this without creating an annual rent-charge. Under my Amendment the tenant would save this extra charge.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: In other words, the tenant would have to go to the expense of a mortgage to raise money on the land for the benefit of the lord.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. MELLOR): I am afraid it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment; because, as has been pointed out, the small copyholder would have to pay down a sum which would be an inconvenience to him, and the object of the Bill is to make enfranchisement easy for small copyholders. If the Amendment were accepted, he would not only have to pay compensation to the lord, but compensation to the steward, and he would have to pay a fine. Under the circumstances, I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 15 and 16 severally agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Declaration to be made by lord or steward).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES JAMES, the following Amendments made:—In page 7, line 35, after "award," insert "or deed;" and in line 35, leave out "this Act," and insert "the Copyhold Acts."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 18 to 22 severally agreed to.
    Clauses 23 to 26, inclusive, severally agreed to, with Amendments.
    Clauses 27 to 30, inclusive, severally agreed to.
    Clause 31 (Saving power to enfranchise by deed).
    On the Motion of Viscount GRIMSTON, the following Amendment made:—In page 13, line 36, after "lord," insert "or other parties by direction of any lord."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 32 to 46, inclusive, severally agreed to, with Amendments.
    Clause 47 (Costs of enfranchisement).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES JAMES, the following Amendment made:—In lines 15 and 16, leave out "commenced and made after the passing," and insert "by award after next admittance or enrolment made under the provisions."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 48 to 55, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTON, in rising to move the insertion of a new clause, said: I will endeavour to show the injury which this clause is intended to remedy. Let the Committee imagine that the whole of this House is a sporting manor—that the two Benches are a freehold, and that the floor is copyhold. It is obvious that if the floor were enfranchised, the benches would be of no value for sporting; so, in the case of an acre of land in the midst of a field, the owner might sit there all day long and shoot the game. It is to endeavour to remedy such an injustice that I ask that the clause may be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Viscount Grimston.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST): I think it likely that there may not be much opposition to the clause; but, having regard to the fact that several hon. Members present wish for an opportunity of considering it, I think it would be well that Progress should be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    MR. STAFFORD HOWARD: I do not wish to express any opinion upon the clause now; but shall reserve my judgment upon the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    BANKRUPTCY (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION) ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Bill to amend "The Bankruptcy (Office Accommodation) Act, 1885," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 161.]

    PREVENTION OF HYDROPHOBIA BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Macfarlane, Bill to give power to the Home Secretary to make regulations for the prevention of the spread of Hydrophobia throughout the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macfarlane, Dr. Cameron, Mr. M'Iver, and Dr. Farquharson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 162.]
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No. 3) (48); Trees (Ireland) (42).
Referred to a Select Committee—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No. 1) (25); Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No. 2) (40); Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment (No. 3) (48).
Third Reading—Justices Jurisdiction* (43); Law of Evidence Amendment (44), and passed.

NEW PEERS.
The Right Honourable Richard de Aquila Grosvenor (commonly called Lord Richard de Aquila Grosvenor), having been created Lord Stalbridge of Stalbridge in the county of Dorset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable William Baron Kensington in that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, having been created Baron Kensington of Kensington in the county of Middlesex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE—GREECE AND TURKEY—THE RUSSIAN FLEET.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had anything to communicate to the House with respect to the reported departure of the Russian Fleet from Suda Bay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (The Earl of ROSEBERY): I understand that orders will be at once given, if they have not been already given, for the Russian Fleet to return to Suda Bay. I also understand that the Russian Fleet only left the Bay for the purpose of re-victualling. I may add that Her Majesty's Government have received the most cordial assurances of co-operation from the Russian Government in this matter.

LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 44.)
(The Lord Bramwell.)
LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 44.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper to move the rejection of the Bill. He hoped it was not unseemly in him to oppose a Bill which had been so often carried in their Lordships' House, and which was nearly being referred to a Grand Committee in "another place." Such Committees, however, were devices of the last Parliament. He had great respect for the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), who was not called to the Bar till he was 30 years of age; and before 1838, for six years he (Lord Denman) had the advantage of hearing Sir James Scarlett and Sir John Campbell; two Sir Fredericks—Pollock and Thesiger—one grave, the other gay; and two Sir Williams—Erle and Follett—and they were often on different sides, and one must have been wrong. The Bill was faulty in every way—notwithstanding the amelioration by the Amendment reported. He believed the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition opposed the principle of the Bill, when he said, in this House, that he should attach no importance whatever to evidence extorted by interrogations by police officers. He thought it might amuse their Lordships to quote from The Critic; or, A Tragedy Rehearsed (by Sheridan), the significancy of the mode of entrance of the ancestor of the noble Marquess——
  "Puff—I only hope the Lord High Treasurer is perfect—if he is but perfect.
  "(Enter Lord BURLEIGH, goes slowly to a chair and sits.)
  "Sneer—Mr. Puff.
  "Puff—Hush! vastly well, Sir! vastly well! a most interesting gravity.
  "Dangle—What, isn't he to speak at all?
  "Puff—Egad, I thought you'd ask me that! Yes, it is a very likely thing—that a Minister in his situation, with the whole affairs of the nation on his head, should have time to talk! But hush! or you'll put him out.
  "Sneer—Put him out; how the plague can that be if he is not going to say anything.
  "Puff—There's the reason! Why, his part is to think; and how the plague do you imagine he can think if you keep talking.
  "Dangle—That's very true, upon my word.
  (Lord BURLEIGH comes forward, shakes his head, and exit.)
  "Sneer—He is very perfect indeed! Now, pray what did he mean by that?
  "Puff—You don't take it?
  "Sneer—No, I don't, upon my soul.
  "Puff—Why, by that shake of the head, he gave you to understand that even though they had more justice in their cause, and wisdom in their measures—yet, if there was not a greater spirit shown on the part of the people, the country would at last fall a sacrifice to hostile ambition.
  "Sneer—The devil! did he mean all that by shaking his head?
  "Puff—Every word of it—if he shook his head as I taught him."
  He (Lord Denman) did not presume that he could teach the noble Marquess; but in his protest against a Bill for admitting wives as witnesses against their husbands he mentioned the present Bill which had passed this House, and deprecated the interrogation of persons on their acts by magistrates before, and by counsel on, their trials. He, perhaps, had better been silent himself; but he could not refrain from quoting the last verse of a sonnet, written in 1531, by Lord Vaux, commending silence—
  "Wherefore for virtue's sake
  I can be well content;
  The sweetest time in all my life
  To deem in thinking spent."
  He would not make the Motion, which stood in his name.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 48.)
(The Lord Houghton.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 48.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HOUGHTON (for the Board of Trade), in moving that the Bill be read the second time, said, that when the two previous Bills on this subject were before the House he had stated that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill of their own. The Bill only consisted of one clause. By the present law the ordinary course was for a Company to apply to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order, which was given for a term of 21 years, at the end of which, or at the end of any subsequent period of seven years, the Local Authority was empowered to buy the undertaking on certain terms. The present Bill proposed to extend the period of 21 years to 30 years, and it provided that if the consent of the Local Autho-
  420
  rities was obtained at the time of applying for the Order the term might be increased to 42 years. Then, at the end of every 10 years, the purchasing powers of the Local Authority might be exercised. He should, however, be willing to add a clause leaving it to the discretion of the Board of Trade to increase the term to 40 years. In case the Local Authorities declined to assent to the longer term, they would be required to state the grounds of their refusal in writing. It was the firm belief of the Government that this Bill would satisfy those who desired to promote electric light undertakings. He might mention that a Company at Chelsea had offered to undertake electric lighting in that district if they were permitted to take advantage of any legislation which the Government might pass.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Houghton.)
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that the Bill was in the right direction, and he would offer no objection to the second reading.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he had no objection to the second reading, as, no doubt, some modification of the existing law was required. But the Board of Trade were thoroughly justified in taking every precaution that the public should not be exposed to losses in respect of electric lighting similar to those which they had incurred with respect to gas and water. The compensation to be given to Companies at the end of the terms should be of a fixed amount. Whilst the Government extended the period to 30 years, they did not deal with that part of the principle of the Act of 1882 which enacted that no extra compensation should be given on account of the compulsory purchase. He doubted very much whether the method proposed by the Government was the best one, or the only one which could be adopted.
  LORD RAYLEIGHsaid, he had no objection to the second reading, as the Bill was some improvement on the existing law. But no mere extension of time would meet the requirements of the case if the very stringent terms of purchase now imposed were not modified, and if no compensation were to be allowed in respect of goodwill or profit. During the last years of the term the enterprize would suffer greatly

  421
  from the difficulty of carrying out improvements and maintaining the plant in order.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (No. 1) BILL.
(No. 25.) (The Lord Rayleigh.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
(No. 40.) (The Viscount Bury.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BTLL.
(No. 48.) (The Lord Houghton.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BTLL.

  BILLS REFERRED TO A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  VISCOUNT BURY, in rising to move that these three Bills be referred to a Select Committee, said, that the Act of 1882 had been found to be insufficient. But no mere extension of time would be sufficient. He understood that the Government would not be averse to extend the period of 30 years to 40 years; but the mere extension of time was not sufficient for the equitable dealing with the matter. At the end of the period, whatever it was, the plant of the undertakings would be sold as old iron. He did not believe anyone would invest their money under such circumstances. At all events, the best course would clearly be to refer the three Bills to a Select Committee. He belonged to a society which comprised distinguished men of science like Sir W. Thompson and men who were acquainted with the practical application of science like Mr. Preece, of the Post Office, and which, might, in distinction from the purely scientific and commercial aspects of the question, be fairly said to represent educated public opinion on the subject. It was most important that the evidence of such persons should be taken, and clearly the best way of dealing with the question was to refer the three Bills to a Select Committee. He thought that the Bill which he had the honour to introduce dealt with the subject in a much simpler manner. It provided that electricity should be supplied by meter, and that the Company should not interfere with the manner in which the user of electricity chose to use the electric energy placed at his disposal. There was hardly any limit, he might observe, to the ways in which electricity might be used, and more than one meter had been found
  422
  which was accepted by electricians as efficient. These were matters, however, for expert evidence, and they could be discussed far better before a Committee than by talking about a Bill over their Lordships' Table. This was one reason why he thought all these Bills should be referred to a Select Committee. If his noble Friend's Bill, as it stood, became law, it would be impossible to get capitalists to embark a sufficient amount of money in the undertaking with any fair prospect of success. His noble Friend opposite stated that there were some purveyors of electricity who were willing to come under the terms of his Bill. It might be so; but he would venture to express his belief that the terms would not be sufficiently attractive. His own Bill differed in one respect from that of his noble Friend behind him, who proposed that electricity should be put upon the same footing as gas, and that there should be no fixed date at which the concerns should be handed over to the Local Authority, but that, like Gas Companies, they should be perpetual, and that only their dividends should be restricted. His scheme was that at the end of 40 years the Local Authorities should, if they so desired, have a power of coming in and buying the concern at a fair price as a going concern. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the three Bills be referred to a Select Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bills be referred to a Select Committee."—(The Viscount Bury.)
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, that the question was whether Municipal Bodies were to be authorized, at the end of some period which was only to be determined by the Government Bill, to buy the undertakings of Electric Light Companies for something less than they were worth. Was the Corporation of any town to be allowed to buy a going concern for something less than it was worth from those who had had the risk of starting it and keeping it going? In support of that proposition he had heard nothing, except that the Corporations would like it. No doubt they would like to have the same power with regard to railways and gas and water. It was entirely uncertain whether Electric Lighting Companies would be financially successful or not; but

  423
  although, their success was uncertain, and hitherto none had succeeded, the House was asked to give Corporations the opportunity of playing the game of "Heads I win, tails you loose." If the Companies paid and became prosperous the Corporations would buy them; if not, they would leave them alone. He would admit that the Companies ought not to receive the extra price allowed by surveyors for compulsory purchase, usually 10 to 20 per cent. The noble Lord had mentioned offering to light Chelsea on whatever might turn out to be the final terms of the Government Bill. He should like to know what they could not get an offer for? In his experience he generally found that the highest offer was the worst bargain; and he was convinced that if they hampered undertakings in the manner proposed that it would only tend to bring financially weak, incompetent Companies into existence; that these Companies would do their work badly, especially during the latter years over which the order extended; and that they would be giving Local Bodies a right which not even the State had ever before enjoyed, even over Companies whose success was certain if they were properly managed, and he was convinced that such a power ought not to be granted.
  LORD HOUGHTON (for the Board of Trade)said, that the question whether the Bills should be referred to a Select Committee rested entirely with their Lordships' House. If he were right in supposing that the Government Bill would be satisfactory to the promoters of electric light undertakings, it did not seem to him, under those circumstances, that there was any reason for sending it to a Select Committee. The whole of this subject was threshed out thoroughly before a Select Committee of the other House in 1882, and a most voluminous Report was made. All the technical questions to which the noble Viscount had referred were then thoroughly gone into, and if another Committee were appointed the same evidence would have to be taken. He did not think that the result would be to place the Committee in possession of any new scientific or commercial fact upon the subject. Moreover, to send the Bills before a Select Committee would be practically to prevent any legislation taking place before the end of next Session.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that in his opinion these Bills ought to be referred to a Select Committee. He did not wish to find the least fault with those who were responsible for the original Act, by which the Electric Light Companies were given a lease for 21 years. No doubt the authors of that Act were actuated by the best possible motives, and were solely desirous of making the best bargain for the public with the people who embarked their capital in these undertakings. In attempting to make a good bargain for the public in 1882 the Government offered such terms as positively no one would accept. He believed that there had been one application only—he was not quite certain that there had been even one—for a Provisional Order under the Act of 1882. That this was the case was not surprising. If at the end of 21 years the undertakers were bound to sell their property, not, perhaps, at the price of old iron, but for its value as it stood, capitalists would not embark their money in the undertaking. It might very well be that after struggling against difficulties for many years, just as a Company had overcome them and were but beginning to be able to pay a reasonable dividend upon their shares their terms of concession would expire, and the Local Authority would step in, and, being able to borrow money at 4 per cent. would buy them out. The proposal contained in this Bill was that the term of concession should be 30 years, or, with the consent of the Local Authority, 40 years.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that in the event of the Local Authority objecting to an extension of the term the Board of Trade would be empowered to extend it to 40 years, or longer, with the approval of Parliament.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that in 1882 the Government had only offered half the advantages to a Company that they did now; but he was positively assured that even the terms now offered were so bad that even under the new Bill, as under the old Act, there would be no electric lighting. Confessedly 20 years was too short a time; 30 were now offered, or 40. On what information would their Lordships hold that 30 or 40 years were enough, and not too much? He did not think that their Lordships would, without further information, arrive at the conclusion that 40 years was

  425
  a sufficiently long term; and, therefore, without the slightest desire to oppose their Bill, or to throw difficulties in the way of the Government, he held that it should be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD RAYLEIGHpointed out that the history of the Act of 1882 showed that the original proposal of the Board of Trade was that the term should be seven years only. That term was extended to 14 years in the House of Commons, and to 21 years by that House. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to feel much confidence that the Board of Trade had hit the exact length of term necessary for those undertakings in the present measure. The stringency of the provisions of this Bill would probably prevent the public from obtaining the benefit of electric lighting at all.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he hoped that the Government would consent to their Bill being sent to the Select Committee. So many points and details had been raised during the debate that it was quite clear they could only be thus properly considered. But even a Select Committee would find it difficult to form a correct estimate of the length of the term necessary from the evidence of professional witnesses who were likely to appear upon both sides and to give evidence opposite ways with equal positiveness.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Earl GRANVILLE)remarked that the arguments which had been put forward in favour of sending this measure before a Select Committee were of a very different character. He could not, however, but perceive that the feeling of the House was in favour of a Select Committee. At the same time, both individually and on behalf of the Board of Trade, he must enter his protest. The Board of Trade were extremely anxious that this important question should be settled at once. The delay which had already occurred had been very injurious to one of the most useful inventions of late years. He entirely agreed that it would be an almost hopeless task for a Select Committee to attempt to settle the number of years' term that would induce capitalists to invest money in these undertakings. He felt convinced that if the Bill came out of the Select Committee, and was approved by
  426
  their Lordships' House on the principle which had been very generally advocated that night, there was not the slightest chance of its passing through the other House of Parliament, and that the question would be indefinitely delayed. He quite admitted that it was a matter for the House itself to decide; and, as the opinion of the House seemed to be in favour of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, he could only join in the hope expressed by the noble Earl who spoke last that a conclusion might be arrived at by the Committee as soon as possible.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he must express his gratification that the noble Earl opposite had assented to the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. Their Lordships could have but one feeling—namely, that the question should be dealt with as speedily, and at the same time as soundly, as possible. At present there was practically a paralysis of public electric lighting. What they desired was that some means should be found by which the public of this country would more largely enjoy the benefits of that invention. While full protection was secured to the public interest, they did not wish capitalists to be deterred, as they were at present, by the conditions of the existing law.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he would suggest that the Select Committee should be a small one.
  Motion agreed to: Bills referred to a Select Committee accordingly.

TREES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 42.)
(The Lord President.)
TREES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 42.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER), in moving that the Bill be read the second time, said, he would not delay their Lordships by explaining at any length the provisions of this measure, which had received the assent of both Parties in the other House. The Bill was not a Government measure; but as no one objected to it in the other House it was thought by the Irish Executive that, as it was a useful Bill, it was one which might very well be taken charge of by them, and he had

  427
  accordingly been asked to take it in hand in their Lordships' House. The measure was for the purpose of extending the statutory powers in regard to trees which now existed in Ireland. Under an old Act of Parliament tenants for life or tenants for more than 30 years were entitled to register all trees planted by them after having first given notice to the owners of the land of their intention to do so. This Bill would extend this provision to other classes of tenants, and it also contained certain modifications of the old law. One of these was to enable the tenant ejected for the non-payment of rent to sell the trees he might have planted on the land or to get compensation for them, just in the same way as he would get compensation for certain other valuable improvements which were dealt with by the Acts of 1871 and 1881. There were also certain other modifications of the old statutes enabling the tenant acting bonâ fide to cut down trees himself, if he did so either before or just after receiving notice to quit. But, under certain circumstances, the landlord would have the same rights which he now enjoyed under the old Irish Acts. He did not think that he need say more on that occasion, and would content himself with moving the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he did not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but remarked that certain parts of its provisions wore a somewhat suspicious aspect; and unless they could be satisfactorily explained he should feel disposed to move their rejection in Committee. It was somewhat remarkable that, on the eve of some great measure for the expropriation of the Irish landlords, the Government should take under their wing a Bill of this kind, which certainly did not seem to contemplate their being got rid of altogether. He quite thought that some improvement might be effected in the planting of trees in Ireland; but he certainly could not see why a tenant ejected for non-payment of rent should be placed on the same footing as the men who paid their rent, and that he also should be allowed to go on the land for twelve months after he had been ejected for the purpose of cutting the trees down. There
  428
  were other portions of the Bill which he did not quite understand.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of REDESDALE)said, he would point out that the Bill would require a considerable amount of attention from their Lordships in Committee, especially in regard to the permission to be given to the tenants to cut down trees—a power which needed very careful guarding. As their Lordships were aware, if these trees were of considerable growth the mere cutting down would not suffice. The roots might be left in the ground, and the undergrowth which would in a short time appear would be of considerable injury to the land, which, so far as farming purposes were concerned, might, until great expense had been incurred, be practically valueless for agricultural purposes.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he hoped that some interval would be allowed to take place before the Committee stage was taken. In common with his noble Friend (the Earl of Courtown) he did not quite understand the exact bearing of the 3rd sub-section of Clause 3 or Clause 4, and they ought to have the opportunity of consulting with gentlemen in Ireland on the effect of those clauses. The question was one of some importance, considering that each tenant was to be allowed to plant as he liked, and that his planting was to be considered as improvements to the land. Trees, as a rule, were many years in arriving at maturity; and, although compensation was to be given, they might be rather a detriment to the land than an improvement.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 12 th of April next.

POST OFFICE—THE METROPOLITAN POLICE—THE TELEGRAPHS.

  QUESTION.
  EARL FORTESCUEasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government had made any arrangements for giving officers of the Metropolitan Police authority, on their responsibility, to order the telegraphists at postal telegraphic offices to clear the line at once for urgent messages to Scotland Yard, as recommended by the Committee of Inquiry into the Metropolitan disturbances on the 8th of February last?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord WOLVERTON): In conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I arranged some weeks ago for the provision of direct wires from the Central Telegraph Office into Scotland Yard. All the telegraph offices in the Metropolitan district, numbering about 400, have direct communication with the Central Telegraph Office, and by means of the wires to Scotland Yard a message handed in by the police at any one of these 400 offices would secure very prompt transmission to headquarters. Instructions have also been issued authorizing the acceptance of the police messages without prepayment, and every care will be taken that no time is lost in dealing with the messages.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.