Sitting of 19 April 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 1) * [195]; Gas Provisional Orders (No. 1) * [196]; Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Leith) * [197].
First Reading—Lunacy Acts Amendment * [198].
Select Committee—Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment* (60), Colonel Blundell and Mr. Hingley added.
Committee—Police Forces Enfranchisement [3], deferred.
Committee—Report—Crofters (Scotland) (No. 2) [Sixth Night] [118–200].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS (No. 2) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: I had placed upon the Paper a Notice of my intention to move that this Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee; but having regard to the course adopted by the House on Friday upon the Cricklewood, Kilburn, and Harrow Road Tramways Bill, I do not propose to move that Reference. I prefer to act upon the suggestion of the hon.

    3
    Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), and to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Tramways Act, 1870, the powers of Tramways Companies, and the management of tramways.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

    PRIVATE BILLS.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 39 and 129 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing Duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, he extended to Monday 3rd May.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—THE PURCHASE SYSTEM— PURCHASE LIEUTENANTS.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Officers in the Army, having paid £700 or more in the purchase of their Lieutenancies previous to the Abolition of Purchase in the Army, will be allowed, on retirement from the Service, any advantages in respect of the money so paid; and, whether Officers, having entered the Army since the Abolition of Purchase, and paid nothing for their Commissions, will receive the same retiring allowances as others having paid large sums?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): This Question was fully answered on August 4, 1881, by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary. The suggestion is, I suppose, based on the fact that a purchase captain does in his retired pay receive some compensation for his purchase money; but I would point out that such compensation is given only in respect of the over-regulation sum which the captain could have realized on selling his commission. This averaged from £600 to £700; and if the officer attained higher rank before being pensioned it was held that the increased retired pay of the higher rank included all compensation due to purchase rights. In the case of purchase lieutenants the over-regulation money was only £100
  4
  on the average, and as they must necessarily be pensioned from a higher rank no question of compensation can arise.

  ARMY (PENSIONS)—CASE OF JAMES KELLY, ARMY PENSIONER.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that James Kelly, Army pensioner, Newbliss, county Monaghan, late of the 16th Brigade Royal Artillery, was engaged in service in Meerut, East India, when, by the capsizing of a field gun, he sustained such serious injuries that he was under medical treatment from December 1872 to March 1874, when he was discharged from the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, after having one of his arms amputated, a portion of his left jaw, which was fractured, removed, with the sight of one of his eyes seriously affected, and his hearing almost destroyed; whether he was discharged on a pension of one shilling per day for eighteen months, which was subsequently, after submitting himself to two medical examinations, increased to one shilling and six pence per day for life; whether Kelly applied for, and was granted, a further medical examination, which was held at Armagh in August 1883, with the view of establishing his claim to a higher pension, at which examination, owing to the fact that he was only required to answer the usual formal questions not applicable to the gravity of his case, and, being very nervous and delicate at the time, he failed to direct the medical examiner's attention to the number and nature of his injuries; whether Kelly since forwarded to the War Office a petition, accompanied by the recommendations of eight medical doctors, praying for another medical examination, the expenses of which he declared his willingness to bear, and which prayer was refused; and, whether, taking into consideration the services, sufferings, losses, and present deplorable condition of this man, he will afford him the desired opportunity, by another medical examination, of proving his claim to a more generous pension?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): Sir, steps are being taken to have a full inquiry into the case of this pensioner.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND—GLIN UNION, CO. LEITRIM—QUALIFICATION FOR GUARDIAN.
  MR. STACKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the rating qualification for a guardian in the Leitrim (county Kerry) division of Glin Union is £25, and only five persons resident in the division are rated over that amount, of whom two are disqualified by being evicted from their farms; whether he is aware that at the last election the ratepayers had to nominate a candidate who does not live in the Leitrim division but in the county Limerick; and, whether he would consider the advisability of recommending the Local Government Board to lower the rating in this division to £15?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. It is the intention of the Local Government Board to consider the question of reducing the qualification before the next election occurs in the division.

  LIGHTHOUSES (IRELAND)—BEREHAVEN LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he is aware that it is essentially necessary for the success of the fishing industry in Bantry Bay that the Lighthouse at the western end of Bere Ireland should be utilised; and, if he will take the necessary steps to accomplish that object?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The Commissioners of Irish Lights inform me that before the tower at the western end of Bere Island was finished the idea of exhibiting a light from it was abandoned, owing to the difficulty of sailing vessels navigating up the western channel in consequence of its narrowness. On this decision being taken the present Berehaven Light was at once commenced.

  INLAND REVENUE (INCOME TAX)— BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that several permanent Building Societies still refuse to allow Income Tax on interest, he will instruct
  6
  the Solicitor to the Inland Revenue to enforce penalties for each refusal in accordance with the Act 16 and 17 Vic. c. 34, s. 40?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): These instructions are not necessary. The solicitor to the Inland Revenue is always prepared, under instructions from the Board of Inland Revenue, to institute proceedings for penalties in any cases where they appear to have been incurred. All cases of refusal on the part of Building Societies to allow Income Tax on interest which have hitherto been brought under the notice of the Board of Inland Revenue have been satisfactorily settled without the aid of legal proceedings.

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)—THE GAELIC LANGUAGE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in filling up the vacant office of Sheriff Substitute at Portree, he will take care that the person to be appointed shall have, with other qualifications, a knowledge of the Gaelic language?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): It is, no doubt, desirable that officials in the Highlands should be able to speak Gaelic, if this qualification can be obtained with the other qualifications requisite. The point will be duly considered in filling up the office referred to.

  ARMY STORES—MILITARY TENTS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Mr. MURPHY)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Military tents stored at Arbour Hill Barracks, Dublin, were formerly kept in repair locally and in a satisfactory manner; whether, of late years, it is the practice to get those tents repaired in England at a greater cost, including carriage both ways, than before the present system was adopted; what was the reason of this change; and, will arrangements be made that the repairs shall in future be executed in Dublin?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): No change has been made in the system of having tents repaired. Tents stored in Dublin are repaired there by local

  7
  labour, and in the interests of economy local repairs are always encouraged. When tents in Ireland are condemned locally they are forwarded to Woolwich for ultimate disposal. Occasionally these are found susceptible of repair, and after repair would be re-issued. Possibly the case of some of these tents may have suggested the hon. Member's Question.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS—THE VESTRY CLERK OF ST. PANCRAS.
  MR. BAGGALLAYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that, by the byelaws of the vestry of St. Pancras (Part III. Rule 7), one of the duties of the vestry clerk and clerk to the directors of the poor to prepare the lists of voters and to attend at the revision of such lists, and that the vestry clerk received the sum of £10 10 s. for doing one or both of such duties in 1885; whether it is any part of the duty of the overseers or their clerk to collect information as to lodgers' claims at the expense of the ratepayers; is he aware that Mr. George Harrison, chief clerk of the vestry, represented Mr. Gibb, the vestry clerk, at the revising barrister's court in 1885, and shortly afterwards issued the following Circular to the officers of the vestry—
  "Dear Sir,—A meeting of the officers of the vestry and guardians will be held in the Board Rooms on Monday next at 5.30 p.m. to consider the steps to be taken to assist Mr. Gibb in his Parliamentary candidature. Your attendance is particularly requested.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "Alfred A. Millward,
  "George Harrison;"
  and, will he take steps to provide, by legislation or otherwise, that, in future, no official, whose duty it may be to prepare the lists of voters, take active part either as a candidate or active political partisan in any Parliamentary election within the district in which he is employed?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. STANSFELD): It appears that such a bye-law as that referred to in the first part of the Question was made more than 30 years ago; but I am informed that it is now, practically, obsolete. A sum of 10 guineas was paid to the Vestry Clerk as an acknowledgment of the assistance given to the Revising Barrister at the
  8
  evening sittings, the cost of the preparation of the list of voters being about £900. I understand that it is not the duty of the overseers of the parish to obtain information as to lodgers' claims at the expense of the rates, and that no expense was incurred by them under this head. Mr. Harrison did represent the Vestry Clerk at the Revising Barrister's Court in 1885, and the letter referred to in the Question was circulated among the officers of the Guardians and Vestry. As regards the concluding inquiry, which is of a general character, I can only say that if an officer who has duties in connection with the preparation of the list of voters is to be precluded from becoming a candidate in a Parliamentary election within the district in which he is employed, it can only be done by express legislation, and that this is a matter which may have to be considered in connection with any Registration Bill which may be introduced by the Government.
  MR. BAGGALLAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to suggest that the question should be dealt with in such a Bill?
  MR. STANSFELD: I am not prepared to make any suggestion; but I can promise the matter will have attention.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BAUMANNasked the honourable Member for Manchester (South), Chairman of the Ventilation Committee, Whether the temporary but effective measures for preventing, as much as possible, the air of the Palace of Westminster from being contaminated with sewer gas emanating from the low level sewer of the main drainage of the Metropolis, adverted to in the interim Report of the Committee, will be carried out during the Easter Recess?
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE, in reply, said, that the Committee on the Ventilation of the House brought under the notice of the proper officer of Her Majesty's Board of Works the desirability of at once carrying out the temporary measures referred to in the interim Report of the Committee for effectually preventing the air of the Palace of Westminster from being contaminated with sewer gas emanating from the low

  9
  level sewer of the main drainage of the Metropolis, and they had received the assurance of that officer that the proposed measures could, in his opinion, be executed before the House re-assembled after the Easter Recess. They had, moreover, reason to believe that the Board of Works did not look otherwise than favourably on the proposal.
  MR. BAUMANNsaid, what he wanted to know was not whether the works could be done, but whether they would be done?
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEsaid, that the Committee had no power to order the works to be carried out.
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY)said, that the Board of Works fully recognized the importance of having the works done at once. It was a very important matter. No effort would be spared, and they were in hopes that the improvements would be finished by the time the House met again.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— CIRCUIT COURTS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to the fact that there are no prisoners for trial at the Circuit Court appointed to be held at Dundee on the 20th April; and, whether he will consider the propriety of making such arrangements as will in future avoid the inconvenience and expense of holding Circuit Courts when there is little or no business to be done?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): It is true that there are no prisoners for trial at the Circuit Court to be held at Dundee tomorrow. But it is possible that there may be complaints and civil appeals; and, further, as the Court is held under statutory authority, no such arrangements as the hon. Member points at can be made by the Judges. As no jurymen have been summoned, and the officials only require to attend, the inconvenience and expense occasioned by the holding of the Court will not be serious.

  INDIA—VETERINARY SURGEONS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is intended to reduce the number of Senior Vete-
  10
  rinary Surgeons in India, and to supply their places with Junior Veterinary Surgeons from the Indian Civil Service; and, whether, at present, the number of skilled surgeons is found insufficient for the work, owing to the amount of contagious disease among elephants, horses, and mules?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD): As was stated to the House on March 12 last, in reply to a Question from the hon. and gallant Member for Holborn (Colonel Duncan), a reduction in the Veterinary Establishment in India has been sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council, on the recommendation of the Government of India. There is, however, so far as I am aware, no desire to alter the existing proportions of senior and junior officers in the Department. There is at present no Civil Veterinary Department in India; but the creation of a Civil branch of the Service is at present under consideration. No representation has been made by the Government of India that the number of skilled surgeons in the country is insufficient.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. W. L. BOLE, J.P., CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. William L. Bole, a magistrate for the county of Longford, refused to sign the statutory declaration of Patrick Kelly and others for proxy votes at the recent election of a Guardian for the Agharra Electoral Division of the Ballymahon Union; whether the day on which the proxies were tendered was the last day on which they could be signed; and, whether, in consequence, the proxies were of no avail?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, that he was informed that at the time Mr. Bole was applied to he was extremely busy, and told Kelly there were two other magistrates in the town who could sign the paper, and referred him to them. There being no contest or second nomination in the Electoral Division for the last three years, it did not appear to have in any way affected the result of the election.

  THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE— VACANT LAND.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONasked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether he will consider the propriety of laying out the vacant land on the west side of the Royal Courts of Justice as an ornamental garden for the use of the public?
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY): It is not proposed to lay out as a public recreation ground the land in question, which will be required at no distant time for the extension of the Courts of Justice. A Departmental Committee has recently reported in this sense.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONasked, whether the hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety, at all events, of making some slight alterations by fixing ornamental railings and laying down grass, in order that the grounds might be made more sightly than they now were?
  MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, he would bring the matter before the notice of the First Commissioner of Works.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—RIO DEL REY.
  MR. HUTTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, under the engagements entered into between the Governments of Great Britain and Germany in April and May 1885, British traders established on the territories of the right bank of the Rio del Rey, on the West Coast of Africa, or established on any of the affluents of the right bank of that river, will be within the boundary of the British protectorate, and able to carry on their trade there under British jurisdiction?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The territories on the right bank of the Rio del Rey fall within the area over which the British Protectorate extends, and British traders there will have the benefit of any British jurisdiction which may be constituted.

  WAR OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT— SUPPLEMENTARY CLERKS.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a Memorial has been received from the Supplementary Clerks
  12
  of the War Office, supported by the opinion of counsel, alleging that several of these gentlemen are suffering from a breach of faith as to their prospects of official advancement; and, if so, whether he will consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to remedy the grievances complained of?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): I have seen the Memorial referred to; but I have not had time since I came into Office to go thoroughly into the question raised in it. The hon. Member may be sure that it will not be neglected.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—THE GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF KISHNAGHUR.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of the Government of Bengal to withdraw in any degree State aid or State control from the Government College of Kishnaghur; and, whether such withdrawal constitutes a breach of the understanding on which the Government College of Kishnaghur was endowed by local subscription in 1876?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD): The subject is one which it is within the competence of the Government of India to decide, and the Secretary of State in Council has received no information about it.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— TRANSFERS FROM DOWNPATRICK.
  MR. COXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the reasons why Constables Lockington, Orr, M'Guigan, and Cameron have been removed from Downpatrick?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The four constables named were removed because they could not agree amongst themselves; and it was considered necessary, for the peace of the station and the discipline of the Service, that they should be removed.

  LIGHTHOUSES (IRELAND)—CARLINGFORD LOUGH LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. O'HANLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  13
  tenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that for several years the keepers of the Carlingford Lough Lighthouse have been kept in Kilkeel at lodgings of an inconvenient and insufficient character and in a highly unsanitary state, although much superior accommodation could be obtained at a smaller annual outlay than at present; and, whether any steps will be taken to remedy this state of things?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA)(who replied)said: The Commissioners of Irish Lights inform me that no lightkeepers reside at Kilkeel. The keepers of the Carlingford Lough leading lights live at Greencastle, in lodgings paid for by the Commissioners. It is proposed to build dwellings for the use of the keepers at Greencastle. The intention has been delayed owing to the excessive compensation demanded by the tenants of the property. Proposals have been received for letting other lodgings which are not better than those at present occupied by the keepers. Until the Commissioners have built their own houses they do not think it advisable to enter into other arrangements.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. SMITHWICKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the anomaly that the Railway rate upon the Great Southern and Western Line (Ireland) for the carriage of porter is fifteen shillings per ton from Kilkenny City to Dublin, being a distance of 81 miles, whereas the same commodity and quantity is carried from Cork to Dublin, being a distance of 165½ miles, for the same charge of fifteen shillings per ton; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made, in view of the promised legislation, in order that the necessity of relieving the public from such, inequality of Railway rates may be established?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): No, Sir; my attention has not been called to the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers; but I have directed a communication to be made to the Company, with a view to learning the exact facts of the case. Supposing these to be as stated, nothing
  14
  can be done beyond an appeal to the Railway Commissioners until the Bill now before the House is passed into law.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. TREVELYAN&c.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the position of Resident Magistrates will be governed, as regards their tenure of office and personal prospects, by the provisions applied to Civil Servants in Ireland under Clause 29 of the Government of Ireland Bill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The answer to my right hon. Friend's Question is in the affirmative. The Bill distinguishes between those persons, such as Judges and County Chairmen, whose salaries are by law charged on the Consolidated Fund, and all ordinary Civil servants who are paid out of moneys voted by Parliament. The Resident Magistrates belong to the latter class, and they are dealt with, like other Civil servants, by Clause 29 of the Bill.

  CONTINUANCE SITTINGS BILL.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked Mr. Attorney General, If he can inform the House whether the Lord Chancellor has come to any decision in reference to the representations which were made to him by the deputation which waited upon him in reference to the Continuance Sittings Bill in the Provinces?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, that he had received from the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor a communication to the effect that he had seen the Judges since the deputation on this subject attended in London, and, with their Lordships' assent, he had it in contemplation to alter the existing Rules by removing the restrictions which limit the facilities of trial in Lancashire. The Lord Chancellor had also under consideration, and hoped to be able to provide a scheme, by which the administrative business of causes proceeding in the District Registries of Manchester and Liverpool might be prosecuted locally and not necessarily in London.

  LAW AND POLICE (ENGLAND)—EVICTION OF MINERS IN DURHAM.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the Memorials he has received from the ratepayers and from the miners of South Medomsley, he will suggest to the magistrates for the county of Durham the expediency of directing a thorough and impartial inquiry into the alleged improper conduct of the police during the recent evictions at South Medomsley Colliery?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): My hon. Friend is aware that I have no authority over the Durham police, and that all I can do on such a Question as this being asked in the House of Commons is to call for information from the police authorities. I have done so, and it is not my opinion that on this occasion the police acted improperly. The remedy which the complainants have, if they are still unsatisfied, is to take proceedings before the Justices against the constables for excess of duty.

  CEYLON—RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is true that in 1878 the Colonial Office sanctioned an expenditure of one million pounds sterling to construct two-thirds, or forty-two miles, of a railway line intended to reach new traffic in the province of Uva, Ceylon, but up to the present the officials at the Colonial Office have declined, in the face of urgent appeals from two Governors and their Executive Councils, annual Memorials from the natives, planters, and merchants, to sanction the half million necessary to construct the remaining one-third, or twenty-five miles, and that, in consequence, the interest on the million pounds sterling cannot be earned?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): It is true that in 1878 the then Secretary of State sanctioned an expenditure of £1,000,000 sterling on the line referred to in the Question, on the distinct assurance that it would pay without any regard to its possible extension. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the officials
  16
  at the Colonial Office, who are simply the servants of the Secretary of State, have ever given any decision on this or any other Colonial matter of business. The late Secretary of State (Sir Frederick Stanley), after giving the matter his most careful consideration, reluctantly arrived at the conclusion that the estimates of the earnings of the proposed extension line would not warrant the cost—estimated at between £18,000 and £19,000 per mile—of constructing it. When I state that between 1877 and 1884 the Revenue of Ceylon fell from over Rs.17,000,000 to Rs.12,500,000, while its debts increased from £1,000,000 sterling to £2,200,000 sterling, and that in such a Colony there are always other important reproductive works claiming attention when such matters are under consideration, the hon. Member will, I am sure, see how impossible it is for the Home Government, with every desire to provide facilities of transport for the planters, to whom the Colony is largely indebted for its prosperity, to sanction projects which cannot be shown to pay interest and provide a Sinking Fund on the amount borrowed for the purpose. I may add that public opinion in the Colony is by no means unanimous on the scheme, and that the two unofficial Members who represent the Native interest on the Council spoke and divided the Legislative Council against it.

  PARLIAMENT—CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—THE STEPNEY ELECTION.
  MR. CREMERasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Judges in the Stepney election petition, to the effect that a Member against whom no illegal practices of any kind have been proved, but whose return has been unsuccessfully challenged by a scrutiny, may be compelled to bear the enormous costs of defending his seat, while the Petitioner who has initiated the litigation and whose claim to have had the majority of legal votes has been conclusively disproved, is released from payment of any part of the costs to which he has put the sitting Member, on the ground that the Judges, in the exercise of their discretion, considered there was a reasonable case for inquiry; and, whether, having regard to the limit of expenses

  17
  fixed by "The Corrupt Practices Act, 1883," by which candidature for Parliament was believed to be open to men of moderate means and not to be exclusively within the reach of men of wealth, he will consider the desirability of limiting by Legislation the discretion of the Judges in awarding costs?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, that the facts, as stated in the first part of the Question, seemed, so far as he (the Attorney General) knew, to be accurately set out. He had no hesitation in saying that, in view of these facts, the case seemed to be a very hard one. He had not, however, the whole of the facts fully before him, or within his knowledge; and it would be presumptuous and wrong for him to attempt to pronounce an opinion as to the discretion the Judges had thought proper to exercise. With regard to the question whether it would be desirable to limit by legislation the discretion of Judges in awarding costs, he thought it was not undesirable that the costs should be made to follow the event, unless for good causes the Judges decided otherwise. This was already the case in ordinary litigations in the High Courts; and he (the Attorney General) believed the same rule was supposed to be substantially followed in the case of Election Petitions. He would mention the matter to the Lord Chancellor, with the view of ascertaining whether any change was desirable.

  METROPOLIS—RAILWAY EXTENSION.
  MR. CREMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can explain the delay which has taken place in the commencement of the Paddington and Lime-house Railway, the South Eastern Rail-way extension in Southwark and Bermondsey; and, whether, taking into consideration the serious loss entailed by suspense and uncertainty upon the shopkeepers and owners and occupiers of property in the scheduled area, and the great amount of unemployed labour in the Metropolis, he can take any steps to expedite the commencement of the works referred to?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): I have no information with regard to the Question put to me by the hon. Member, as the
  18
  Board of Trade has no power to act in the matter. I may add that the time limited for the completion of the works in question is fixed by special Act of Parliament in each case, and in the event of that being overstepped they would be liable to a penalty of the loss of deposit. I have forwarded a copy of the hon. Member's Question to the respective Railway Companies.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF G. GIBBS AND P. MULLENS.
  MR. SHEEHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether two men, named George Gibbs and Patrick Mullens, were prosecuted at the Gort Petty Sessions on the 31st October last, for an assault on two men named Claran and Linskey; whether Gibbs was sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, and Mullens to 14 days; whether Gibbs's solicitor applied to the Bench to have one day added to Gibbs's sentence, to give him power to appeal, which was refused; whether Gibbs only learned when he was lodged in gaol that his term was to be two months; whether Gibbs, in carrying with another prisoner a barrow of coal, slipped and fell under the coal he was carrying, and broke his leg; whether when discharged from the prison, Gibbs still suffering from his leg, was with two securities summoned, he being under a rule of bail, and his recognizances estreated, he being fined £2, and his sureties £1 each; and, whether, having regard to all the circumstances, some compensation will be made to him for the injury he received in the prison; or, at least, will the fines be remitted?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, the assaults committed in this instance appeared to be entirely unprovoked; and the Bench, in the exercise of their discretion, sentenced Mullens to 14 days' imprisonment, and Gibbs, who committed two assaults and had been bound to the peace previously, to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, being a month for each assault. Gibbs sprained his ankle in prison; but the medical officer stated that he was nearly all right when he was released. The magistrates estreated his recognizances, but, in consideration of the injury he received, reduced the amount from £10

  19
  and £5 to £2 and £1. The case did not appear to call for further consideration.

  ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882— LEGISLATION.
  MR. COBB: asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, looking to the neglect of the trustees of parochial charities to carry out the provisions of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882," he could say approximately when the Government would be in a position to introduce the Local Self Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. STANSFELD): My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this Question. My hon. Friend correctly assumes that the subject of allotments and of small holdings will be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government in the Local Government Bill, if not by a separate measure. Her Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the importance of the subject in the interests of the agricultural population. I regret that I am not at this moment in a position to make a statement as to the time when I shall be enabled to ask leave to introduce a Local Government Bill; but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no avoidable delay in so doing.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (THE JOINT COMMITTEE).
  MR. MAGNIACasked, Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say on what day after the Recess the subject of the Indian Committee would be taken; or, if he could not fix a day, whether reasonable Notice would be given?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): in reply, said, that reasonable Notice would be given.

  THE DOMINION OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES—TREATY OF WASHINGTON—FISHERY DISPUTES.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether overt acts of aggression, as between Canadian and American fishermen in the Bay of Fundy, have recently taken place; whether the United States Government
  20
  has brought the matter to the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and whether steps are now being taken by the Canadian or the Imperial Government to put an end to these disturbing fishery disputes?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I am not surprised at the hon. Member putting the Question, which, perhaps, ought properly to be answered by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. No representation has been received from the Government of the United States as to any acts of aggression by United States or Canadian fishermen in the Bay of Fundy, nor has any official information been received showing that such acts have taken place. The Fishery Clauses of the Treaty of Washington, having been denounced by the United States Government, lapsed in July, 1885, and a temporary arrangement for continuing their operation for the then current fishing season has now also expired. The United States Senate having rejected the proposal of the Government of that country to appoint an International Commission to consider the best means of settling the question on equitable terms, the rights of Canadian and American fishermen are now remitted to the position in which they were placed by the Convention of 1818. If any dispute should arise as to the exercise of these rights, the House may rest assured that no effort will be spared by Her Majesty's Government to settle them with as little friction as possible.

  LAND PURCHASES (IRELAND).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the Land Act of last Session, How many farms above the value of £100 per annum had been purchased; and, what was the total rental and purchase of what had been sanctioned?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The number of farms of over £100 a-year rental that have been purchased is 65, and the amount sanctioned for their purchase is £171,797. The largest purchase is a rent of £450 a-year. This has been bought, subject to a head rent of £122, for £4,550, of which the Land Commissioners advanced £3,000. I am

  21
  unable to say now what is the total rent of the farms whose purchase has so far been sanctioned, nor can I say how many years' purchase the amount sanctioned is of the gross rental. I understand it would take some days to get out this information, and I only got my hon. Friend's Notice yesterday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What Business would be taken on the Monday and the Thursday after the Recess; and, also, whether he intended to proceed with the Budget Bill to-night?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, he understood the Civil Service Estimates would be taken on the Monday; and, of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wished the Budget Bill not to be taken to-night, he would not take it.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: As the Land Bill was not circulated this morning, I would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether the Government intends to make any provision in the Bill dealing with the case of the purchasers of Church Lands in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I regret to say that at the present stage we have been unable to include any provision in the scheme in regard to that matter.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Can you give any hope that the claims of the purchasers of Church lands will be dealt with in any other shape?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I would rather not commit myself at this moment to any further statement.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated when the Bill will be circulated.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have seen the draftsman to-day, and he assures me that it will be circulated not later than Wednesday morning.
  In reply to Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government proposed to take the Budget Bill on the Monday after the Recess, as it was very desirable that it should be disposed of before they came to the discussion of the Irish Bills.
  MR. ADDISONasked when the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill was likely to be taken?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA), in reply, said, he only wished he had been able to give the hon. Member a positive answer as to when the Bill would be likely to come on. It all depended on what progress was made with the Crofters Bill. If that Bill were got out of the way tonight, he proposed to take the Railway Bill on the Thursday after Easter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  (Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  [BILL 118.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 15th April.]
  [SIXTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 14 (Assigned Land).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): As this is the last clause in Part 5 which deals with the enlargement of holdings, I should like to make a few brief observations to the Committee before the clause is added to the Bill. I look upon it as a good principle to make provision for the enlargement of crofters' holdings upon fair terms when there is available land conveniently adjacent to that already in the occupancy of the crofters. But I feel bound to say that the refusal of the Government to accompany the measure by some provision for pecuniary aid to enable the crofter to stock the enlarged holding materially impairs the value of the concession. The Committee, in this part of the Bill, have been engaged in imposing numerous restrictions upon the enlargement of crofters' holdings in the interests of the landlord; and, as the matter now stands, I am afraid that all these restrictions, together with an entire absence of pecuniary aid, will render the number of cases in which the Bill will be applicable practically nil. This part of the measure is only to be made operative in the

  23
  event of the crofters who make an application to the Land Commission showing that they have the means of stocking it; and, therefore, I am afraid that the number of cases in which the enlargement of the holding will be sanctioned will be an infinitesimal fraction of the number of persons who ought to receive benefit. I am strongly of opinion that, if these clauses are intended to apply at all, provision ought to be made by which the crofters should be able to obtain pecuniary assistance. If the crofter does not possess the means of stocking the holding—and I am afraid there will hardly be a case of that kind, considering the present circumstances of the Highlands—the result will be that these clauses will remain altogether inoperative; because the tenant, if he does not obtain the additional land under the Bill, will hardly get it voluntarily from the landlord. And if the crofter has the means of stocking it, it is scarcely probable that the landlord would refuse to enlarge his holding, even without these provisions of the Bill. I feel bound to express my extreme regret that Her Majesty's Government should have brought in a Bill embodying such good principles, and yet should make it practically inoperative by refusing to give to the crofters the only means by which they could take advantage of it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that his remarks upon this clause are very wide.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I only wished to express my objection to the clause as it stands. The refusal of the Government to accompany it by pecuniary aid is to me astounding, after the proposals which have been made to provide millions for the relief of Irish landlords.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Appointment of three Commissioners).
  DR. R. MACDONALD: The first part of this clause provides that, with a view to the execution of the Act, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint three Commissioners, who are designated in the Bill as "the Land Commission." The object of the Amendment which I am about to propose is to provide that all the Commissioners shall speak the Gaelic language. I cannot help thinking
  24
  that it would be ridiculous and absurd to appoint three Commissioners who can only speak the English language, and who would be altogether unacquainted with the language spoken by the large majority of crofters with whose interests they will have to deal. I believe that it will be very easy indeed to find gentlemen fit to do the work who are able to speak the Gaelic language; and I feel satisfied that, if this proposal is not adopted, there will not only be many misunderstandings, but frequent miscarriages of justice, owing principally to the want of information on the part of the Commissioners. To my mind, it is of the utmost importance that the Commissioners should be able to talk to these people in their own language, and ascertain their grievances from their own mouths, instead of through an interpreter. In any case, the crofters themselves would have much more confidence in the Commission, and would be more satisfied with its decisions, if the Members of it were able to talk to them in their own tongue. I regard this as a matter of very great importance indeed, and I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will accept it, or, at least, consent to provide that there shall be upon the Commission someone who can speak the Gaelic language.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 10, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the words "all of whom can speak the Gaelic language."—(Dr. R. Macdonald.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B, BALFOUR)&c.): I have no doubt that there is a great deal in what has been said by the hon. Member to justify the appointment of a Gaelic-speaking Commissioner. I would point out, however, that this is a matter for consideration in the administration of the Act, rather than for an express statutory provision in the Bill itself. Although it may be desirable that one or two of the Commissioners should speak Gaelic, I do not think it would be quite safe to put in a statutory restriction of the kind suggested, any more than it would have been to insert in the Irish Act a provision that the Land Commissioners appointed under it should

  25
  speak Celtic. I admit that the matter is a fair one to be kept in view in administering the Act.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I must confess that I have heard the reply of the Lord Advocate to the proposal of my hon. Friend with great disappointment. The Gaelic language is spoken universally by the people in the part of the country falling under the operation of the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend will not insist that the whole of the Commissioners should be able to speak Gaelic; and perhaps the objection of the Lord Advocate would be met by the proposal to appoint at least one Commissioner with a knowledge of the Gaelic language. I will therefore move that the Amendment be amended by the insertion of "one" Gaelic-speaking Commissioner.
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "all," and inserting the word "one."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'all' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment as proposed by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, in order to insure that at least one of the Commissioners should be acquainted with the Gaelic language. Our experience hitherto of legal appointments in the Highlands has not been such as to inspire confidence. In some instances the Procurators Fiscal and Sheriffs are unable to speak Gaelic, with great disadvantage to the people among whom they are required to administer justice. I entirely disagree with the Lord Advocate that it is unnecessary to insert this provision in the Bill. I consider it to be an essential qualification in the appointment of these Commissioners that one of them, at least, should be acquainted with the Gaelic tongue; and to insure that it ought to be specified in the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. Macdonald) accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh)?
  DR. R. MACDONALD: Yes; I am prepared to adopt the suggestion that
  26
  one of the Commissioners shall be able to speak the Gaelic language.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'one' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think it is a very fair proposal that one of the Commissioners, at all events, should be acquainted with Gaelic; and, that being the evident feeling of the Committee, I will accept the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite concur in the view that if a Commissioner can be found who is able to speak the Gaelic language such an appointment would be highly desirable; but I do not think the Committee ought to include such a provision in the Bill. The number of educated persons who possess a knowledge of Gaelic is rapidly diminishing; and if we insert a statutory provision of this kind it might happen, in the course of time, that the Government would be compelled to accept the appointment of a Commissioner who would have no other qualification but that of being able to speak the Gaelic language. I therefore hope that the Lord Advocate will not accept the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTER: I shall be glad to learn how it is suggested that the Commission shall conduct their investigations if no member of the body be able to understand the language of the people whose cases they have to decide. The result of having no one on the Commission who understood Gaelic would be that interpreters would have to be appointed, which would entail great expense, much difficulty, and probable misunderstandings. I therefore hope that the Lord Advocate will require that one, at all events, of the Commissioners should possess a knowledge of Gaelic.
  SIR DONALD CURRIE: I am quite sure that a very large number of the persons in whose interest the Commissioners will have to conduct their inquiries understand no other language than Gaelic. I would only venture to suggest that as the Lord Advocate has already promised that one of the Commissioners shall be able to speak Gaelic he will adhere to his promise, and in making the appointment provide that the most efficient man who can be

  27
  obtained shall be appointed. I am satisfied that efficient men can be found in Scotland possessing the Gaelic qualification.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I have only one word to say. I am very much surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate should wish to appoint Edinburgh lawyers of a certain number of years' standing, ignorant of the native tongue, into these districts to administer justice to a people who cannot understand a word of English. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to go out to India he would find that the most petty official of the Government who is called upon to administer justice to the Natives is required to pass an examination, in order to show that he has a knowledge of the language of the people among whom he is to dwell.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I have already stated that I am prepared to accept the Amendment, and to require as a qualification that one of the Commissioners shall have a knowledge of Gaelic.
  MR. J. H. A. MAGDONALD: I should like to point out to the Committee how the matter stands in regard to the ordinary administration of justice in Scotland. It is certainly incredible to me that in any local parts of Scotland, where all the legal forms are drawn up in English, any difficulty should arise in administering justice, or any dissatisfaction be expressed in consequence of the employment, where necessary, of an interpreter. I cannot see why there should be any more difficulty experienced than there is in the ordinary way in which such cases are dealt with in the Law Courts. I have myself acted as a local Judge in the Highland district, and I have had to administer justice in cases in which scarcely a single witness spoke a word of English. Of course, it was necessary that I should speak to such persons and receive their evidence through an interpreter; but I never found any difficulty, and never heard any dissatisfaction expressed. ["Oh!"] No; not in a single instance, in the whole course of my experience. Nor have I ever heard it said in regard to any case tried in a Criminal Court that an injustice of any kind has been done in consequence of following the ordinary mode of examining a witness who spoke
  28
  another language through an interpreter. I am afraid that a considerable amount of inconvenience and difficulty may be created if this Amendment is inserted in the clause. The Statute should only provide that fit and proper persons shall be appointed on the Commission. We are axious on this side of the House—and I have no doubt that hon. Members on the other side are equally anxious—that the Commissioners appointed in the Land Court should be gentlemen of the highest qualifications and professional rank. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will bear me out when I say that there would be very great difficulty at the present moment in finding efficient men who possess such a knowledge of Gaelic, such practice in and command over the language, which is a very different thing from being merely able to read it, as would give a guarantee that the more important duties of the office would be adequately discharged. I therefore trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will reconsider the matter, and arrive at the conclusion that it is not necessary to include this qualification in the Statute.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is perfectly true in regard to the Law Courts, and that it is frequently the practice to employ an interpreter; but I hope that in the case of the Land Commission the proceedings will be somewhat more informal, and a knowledge of the language might be of great value where a Commissioner was going over a holding. He would be able to speak to the people and elicit information, which he could not do if he did not know their language.
  MR. RAMSAY&c.): I can confirm the statement which has been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), and I very much regret that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate should have assented to the proposal. The greatest drawback from which the Highland people suffer, in providing themselves with labour, and in seeking it elsewhere, is their exclusive knowledge of the Gaelic language. I feel satisfied that if this qualification is insisted upon the Commission will not be as efficient as it ought to be. It is well known that at the present moment there is difficulty in

  29
  obtaining schoolmasters with, a sufficient knowledge of Gaelic to enable them to teach schools efficiently in the Highlands; and still more difficult will it be to find a gentleman of education, position, and legal training to fill the office of Commissioner. There can be no justification in inserting such a qualification, and I am afraid it will only add another obstacle to the proper working of the Bill.
  MR. BEITH: I may say that I know one or two gentlemen familiar with the Gaelic language who would be quite competent to act as Commissioners.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I trust that after the very fair manner in which the Lord Advocate has met the appeal to him the Committee will support the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I cannot allow the statement which has been made to the Committee by two legal Gentlemen—one on this side of the House and one on the other—to pass without notice. I, for one, fail to conceive how it can be satisfactory, either in a criminal or any other trial, to have a Judge who is ignorant of the language of the people among whom he is administering justice. I certainly do not think it right to attempt to justify one abuse by suggesting that another abuse already exists, and that in the ordinary Courts of Law the Judges do not, as a rule, understand the language of the people among whom they administer justice. I am able to confirm what has been said by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) with reference to the necessity of Indian officials knowing the language of the Indian Natives among whom they reside.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I feel bound to dispute the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). It is an entire mistake to suppose that the officials all over India understand the language of the Natives among whom they act. In the Presidency of Bombay, for instance, there are four different vernaculars, and it would be perfectly impossible for a Judge to understand the whole of them.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I cannot answer for the Presidency of Bom-
  30
  bay; but I think I can for the other parts of India.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. M'CULLOCH: The Amendment which I have now to move has reference to the next paragraph of the clause, and its object is to omit the qualification that one of the Commissioners shall be an advocate of the Scottish Bar of not less than 10 years' standing, and to substitute the provision that he shall be a person "duly qualified to practise law in one of the Scotch Courts." I may mention a single instance, which I think will convince the Committee of the inadvisability of making the provision contained in the clause. Probably there was no one better versed in Scotch law and rural practice than the late M'Neil Caird, and yet if he had now been alive it would have been impossible to have appointed him to one of these Commissionerships under this clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 13, to leave out the words "an advocate of the Scottish bar of not less than ten years' standing," and insert the words "duly qualified to practise law in one of the Scotch Courts."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I cannot accept the Amendment. It has been the invariable practice, in similar circumstances, to appoint a person of even considerable standing at the Bar. Under the Irish Land Act the Judicial Commissioner is required to be a person of not less than 10 years' standing at the Irish Bar. Without intending to be disrespectful to any person, I must say that we are more likely to get the proper qualification under the clause than under this Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: The Judicial Commissioner under this Bill will occupy a different position from that of the Irish Commissioner, who is not only a Commissioner of the Land Court, but a Judge of the Superior Courts as well. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate laid it down that the Judicial Commissioner should be a Lord of Session, there might be

  31
  some justification for the qualification which the clause seeks to impose. But I quite agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch) that under this Bill there is no advantage in limiting the selection in the same manner as would be necessary if the appointment were that of Judge of one of the Superior Courts. The questions which the Land Commission will have to deal with are of a different class altogether; the scope of the investigation is limited; and there is no absolute necessity for the appointment of a barrister of 10 years' standing. There are other branches of the Legal Profession in which suitable men may be found, and the limitation proposed by the clause ought not to be retained.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I shall certainly support the Amendment. I hold that its effect will be to widen the area of choice, so as to enable the Government to select the best man. It is quite possible, if there is no restriction of this kind, that you may find a solicitor who is specially qualified to discharge the duties of the office, and who is conversant both with questions relating to land and relating to law. If you make it absolutely essential that the appointment should be conferred upon someone now practising in the Parliament House of 10 years' standing, you may find it necessary to tempt him with the offer of a very large salary indeed. Not only would a large expenditure be entailed in that way, but it would be requisite to give the other two Commissioners correspondingly high salaries. If we limit ourselves to the Parliament House, we are certainly not likely to obtain a really competent barrister of 10 years' standing who would accept the appointment unless the salary offered were a great deal higher than the necessities of the case demand; for these reasons I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch).
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: No doubt the principle of conferring such appointments only upon barristers of 10 years' standing is one which has been long adopted in Scotland; but it is time it should cease. In this particular case I maintain that you may have competent lawyers in the Parliament House, and yet not one of them a person who ought to be selected
  32
  for this appointment. So far as I understand the Amendment, it places no limitation upon the power of the Government to appoint an advocate of 10 years' standing; but it simply provides that the appointment shall not be restricted to that class only.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. M'Culloch) will not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon this point. It must not be forgotten that the Land Commission which the Bill establishes will have to perform most difficult and delicate official duties of an entirely new kind. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the Court to be established should be so constituted as to inspire confidence in both classes of litigants. I venture to think that any Amendment we might insert in the Bill which would lower the status of the Commissioners, or render it probable that they would inspire very little confidence among the people, would be greatly to be deprecated. My only objection to the previous Amendment was that it might not be possible to obtain a man of adequate standing who knew Gaelic; and the fact that we have adopted that Amendment makes it all the more necessary that the remaining Members of the Commission should possess such qualifications as would place the dignity and efficiency of the new tribunal upon a solid foundation.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 80: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 77.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR DONALD CURRIE: I beg to move in page 7, line 14, after "standing," to insert "and the other two Commissioners shall be practical agriculturists." I am of opinion that due provision having been made to secure the services of a Judicial Commissioner with a legal training, the remaining Commissioners should have some practical acquaintance with the questions likely to be brought before them.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 14, after the word "standing," to insert the words "and the other two

  33
  Commissioners shall be practical agriculturists."—(Sir Donald Currie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I think the adoption of the Amendment of my hon. Friend would be calculated to do more harm than good. It would, in that case, be essential to restrict the appointment to men who had lived all their lives in the country, and had devoted themselves to the study of agricultural matters. The object of leaving two of the Commissioners at large, so to speak, and not defining their profession, is to leave it possible to select persons who have special knowledge of agricultural matters. A man may not be a practical agriculturist and yet know a good deal about agricultural matters. The administration of the Act will also involve a certain amount of pastoral knowledge, and that might be excluded by the adoption of the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (Clackmannan, &c.) moved an Amendment in the section relating to the remuneration of the Commission and its officers, the object of which was to include valuers, assessors, clerks, and persons holding inferior situations.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 23, after the word "officers," to insert the words "including valuers and assessors, as also clerks or persons holding inferior situations."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Area covered by the Act).
  MR. MACFARLANE: The first section of the clause provides that—
  "The Commissioners after due inquiry shall ascertain what parishes or islands or districts forming aggregates of parishes, within the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney, and Shetland, are crofting parishes, or aggregates of crofting parishes, and shall determine that this Act shall apply to such parishes."
  I propose, as an Amendment, to leave out the first two lines of the section, for the purpose of providing that the Bill shall be applicable to all the counties named without any preliminary inquiry by the Commissioners to ascertain what were the crofters' parishes. Unless this
  34
  alteration is agreed to, a large number of the poor class of cottars in these counties will be excluded from all the advantages proposed to be conferred by the measure, and the Bill will only apply in patchwork fashion. Within my limited knowledge there is no precedent for legislation which is to apply only to portions of particular localities. If the Amendment is adopted, the Act will still only apply in circumstances to which it is applicable. The object of the clause is, I presume, to make the measure inapplicable where it could not possibly be applied, and my Amendment will answer the same purpose, because if the clause is made applicable to the whole of the counties named, it cannot be applied except in cases to which the Bill is applicable, and that is where there are crofters or crofting parishes whose cases are dealt with by the measure. Therefore, without further observation, I will move the Amendment, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 27, to leave out from the word "The," to the word "within," in line 28, inclusive, and insert the words "This Act shall apply to,"—(Mr. Macfarlane,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'The Commissioners, after due inquiry, shall ascertain what parishes or islands or districts forming aggregates of parishes within' stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I very much agree with the hon. Member as to the result of the Amendment, and believe it would amount to very much the same thing as the clause itself; but if we mean the Act to apply only to areas inhabited by persons possessing the crofter qualification, we had much better say so, and say so consistently. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I support the Amendment. The clause, as it stands, would have a most extraordinary effect. Without any geographical distinction it will apply to one set of tenants holding under one form of tenure, but will except another set of tenants holding under precisely the same tenure. This, I maintain, is con-

  35
  trary to the practice of all modern legislation, which is to assimilate the tenure throughout the country and make it uniform. Here the Bill makes exceptions in the most extraordinary manner. First of all we have exceptional counties, then exceptional parishes, and then exceptional holdings. It is an endeavour to give the benefits of the Act to the smallest number of tenants, and I am sure the result would be unsatisfactory. One tenant would hold under different conditions from another, and a third under a totally different tenure still. I think the Committee should express their opinion upon the matter, if only by way of protest, by accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane), although it may be objected to on the ground that it goes a little too far. No doubt, so far as the interests of the crofters are concerned in the provisions of the Bill, the Amendment would make a material alteration. If there are no crofters, however, the Bill will not apply. The definition in the clause does not apply to the crofters, but to crofting parishes, and later on a "crofting parish" is defined to mean a parish in which there have been, within 80 years prior to the passing of the Act, holdings consisting of arable land held with a right of pasturage in common with others, and in which there are still tenants of holdings from year to year. But there may be parishes in which there are hundreds of crofters to whom the definition will not apply. I have taken the trouble to look at the definition of the word "croft" in the dictionary, and I find that it means a small field or inclosure of arable land attached to a dwelling; but it is not grazing ground. I am quite sure that in many parts of Scotland these common grazing lands do not exist; and therefore I hope the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Argyllshire, which will enable all crofters in the counties mentioned in the clause to receive benefit under the Bill.
  DR. R. MACDONALD: I hope that the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) will adhere to his Amendment. We all
  36
  know that this Bill has been brought in in consequence of the extension of deer forests in the Highlands of Scotland. It was pointed out by an hon. Member, the other night, that on the borders of the large deer forests, like that of Mr. Winans, there is not a single crofter to be found. The only persons who live there are cottars who have been turned out of these forests. Indeed, it would not suit the gentlemen who own deer forests to have crofters all around them. The land, which was originally croft, has been converted into large sheep farms, and very strict precautions are taken to prevent trespassing. I cannot see why there should be any objection to the Amendment. I do not think anybody need be in the smallest degree afraid that any Land Commission which may be appointed will be likely to give the crofters too much, or will do anything that is wrong or unjust. The adoption of the Amendment will save a great deal of discussion in the future. The Government will appoint men who can be trusted to do justice between the landlords and the people, and we should give them the usual latitude in deciding what land should be included, and what not.
  DR. CAMERON: I hope the Committee will adopt the Amendment in the interests of the cottars who may live just outside of crofting parishes, and would constantly be debarred from any benefit under the Act. All crofting parishes in which there are crofters should come within the area of the Bill, and all cottars also, otherwise great injustice will be done. I therefore trust that the Lord Advocate will accept the Amendment.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: This limitation of "crofting parish" is one which I am afraid will affect a great part of the counties included in the Bill. I think there ought to be no restriction whatever; but wherever there are crofters the provisions of the Bill should apply to them. I would ask those hon. Members who represent the crofters, and all Members friendly to them, to take a decided stand on this point, and I trust that the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) will not withdraw the Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: One of the complaints made by the crofters was

  37
  that they were rack-rented; but the Royal Commission only report four instances of rack-rented estates visited by them, and they will not be affected if the Committee pass this clause, so that, under the definition contained in the Bill, certain localities where this legislation is more required than almost anywhere else in Scotland will be entirely debarred from coming in. It has been found in a great many districts that the crofters have been compelled to become leaseholders, and when once a crofter becomes a leaseholder he ceases to be a crofter under the Definition Clause, and he is deprived of the benefit of the Bill. Before the Land Commission can begin their operations at all it will be necessary for them to spend six or 12 months in trying to discover what the crofting parishes are under the definition given here. In the next place, after a great expenditure of money and time, they may arrive at a conclusion as to what are the crofting parishes, and then the other clauses of the Bill step in and operate, so that by the time the Commissioners have completed their preliminary investigation there will be no crofters at all to whom the principles of the Bill can be extended. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) will divide the Committee upon his Amendment, and that his proposal will be carried, so that the Commissioners will be able to begin their work at once without having to waste eight or 12 months in finding out where the Act is to operate.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very unwilling to interpose in the discussion; but I think there is one consideration which it is important for the Committee to bear in mind. As the Bill is based on a certain historic view of the crofters' rights it is absolutely essential that that historic basis should be kept constantly in view. For that reason I regard it as of vital importance that the Government should adhere to the Bill as they have framed it, and confine the exceptional legislation here initiated to those classes which, in the view of the Government, have lost some of the rights which it is now desired by the Government to restore.
  MR. MACFARLANE: When I moved the Amendment I did it in the fewest words possible, because I imagined that there could be no difficulty about the
  38
  matter. Even the speech of the Lord Advocate led me to believe that he himself would make no difficulty. He certainly accused me of going too far; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has pointed out, the clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself goes very much too far, and would, if adopted as it stands, make a very considerable difference to the very poorest class of persons who will receive benefit under the Bill. But that is the way throughout the clauses of the Bill. A clause is inserted which professes to give some benefit to the crofters; and then there are provisoes and sub-sections which impose such restrictions and limitations that the clause becomes altogether valueless. That is the invariable rule. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet answered the objection of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) that the effect of this clause will be to exclude the cottars from the benefits proposed by the Bill. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend that they should be so included, and that there should be a general survey of Scotland to lay down what are the crofting parishes which are included within the scope of the Bill?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I hope that before the discussion is closed the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer the appeal of my hon. Friend, and explain who it is who are to be entitled to compensation under Part IV. of the Bill. He has already consented to make the definition of a crofter wider than was originally intended. There may, however, be a large number of cottars who will be entitled to compensation under the Bill; and it is not contended that they are provided for. As to the historical question, if we are to confine the Bill to the crofters with grazing land and common rights of pasturage, very few persons would be benefited by it. But arable land has now been admitted, and some portion of the cottars are to be benefited; and I wish to know whether the Lord Advocate proposes to exclude from the benefit of this clause those persons who are entitled to compensation under Part IV. of the Bill, and what are to become of crofters who do not happen to belong to crofting parishes?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I hope the Committee will not be prepared to enter into matters of this kind which have already been fully discussed, seeing that it is most desirable to get through with the Bill. There is certainly no intention in the Bill to give the kind of benefits proposed to every cottager throughout Scotland generally, or to every cottager in particular counties; but when it has been ascertained that the parish is a crofting parish upon the historical basis, then we assume that many of those who are found in those areas may at one time have had a connection with the soil and been deprived of their crofts. It is, therefore, proposed to extend the benefits of the Act to such persons, and thus go beyond the persons who now answer the description of crofters; but certainly there is no intention of giving these benefits to every cottager throughout the Lowlands, irrespective altogether of his historical connection with the soil.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 95: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 78.)
  MR. M'CULLOCH: I have an Amendment on the Paper to strike out from the clause the names of the counties in which the crofting parishes are situate; but as the Government have already intimated that the Bill is not be extended beyond the districts which have been reported on by the Royal Commission, I do not propose to move it.
  DR. CLARK: I move to insert, after "Argyll," the words "Bute and Arran." The object of the Amendment is to include the Islands of Bute and Arran among the crofting parishes which are to come within the provisions of the Bill. Bute and Arran contain numerous crofting parishes, and everything that applies to a Highland county will apply to both of those Islands. The great bulk of the crofters there hold the land they occupy under the Duke of Hamilton. They are all them tenants at will, and although the deer come down and eat up their crops, if they make any objection they are turned out. All the evils which exist in the Highlands, and which it is the main object of this Bill to remedy, are to be found in the Island of Arran, and fully entitle it to be included within the scope of the
  40
  Bill. The crofters there complain loudly of their condition, and their grievances are as fully deserving of redress as those of the crofters in any other locality.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 29, after the word "Argyll," to insert the words "Bute and Arran."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): My hon. Friend (Mr. M'Culloch) rightly understood and stated the view of the Government on this matter. The Bill was brought in on the information contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. We have no authentic knowledge—indeed, no knowledge whatever—on which we should be justified in submitting proposals to Parliament with respect to any other localities; and, in these circumstances, I should not feel warranted in asking Parliament to extend the area of this Bill to places not visited by the Royal Commission, and upon which the Commissioners have not reported. The scope of the Commissioners' inquiry was general, and not limited to the Highlands. Their first duty was to inform themselves of the parts of the country which seemed to demand their investigation, and to report upon them. I think we are bound to assume that the Commissioners executed that duty, and made their Report in regard to those places the peculiar social and economic conditions of which justify this legislation. Therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment, and in regard to it and others I am bound to stand by the Bill as limited.
  MR. BEITH: In one part of the Island of Arran the crofters for miles round have been deprived of the right of pasture, and many cases of unjustifiable eviction have taken place from 1820 down to as late as 1883. I could name to the Lord Advocate six distinct glens in this beautiful Island from which the crofters have been evicted during that period; and I am informed that since 1880 the hill pasture has been taken away from the crofters residing in 10 distinct localities in the Island of Arran. If it were not for the situation and attractiveness of the Island, and its near-

  41
  ness to Glasgow, the population would be very badly off indeed. As has been said by my hon. Friend, all the tenants are tenants at will or on one year's lease, and they are in a condition of subjection to the landlord as bad as that of any people in any part of Scotland. If there are any districts outside the counties named in the clause to which the provisions of the Bill ought to be extended, the Island of Arran is certainly one of them. I have had one case placed before me, that of a cottar, who last year laid out £40 upon his little cottage. Hitherto he has been able to let his cottage every season; but he has just received notice to quit, and his outlay of last year, and of previous years, will be all lost to him. In my opinion, it is exceedingly desirable that this Island should be included within the scope of the Bill. The tenants are exactly in the condition of the crofters in the Highlands, for whose relief this Bill is intended; and it is of the utmost importance, in their interests, that the Island should be included.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: This question exclusively affects the Islands of Bute and Arran. As representing the constituency of those Islands, I think it right to state why I intend, in the interest of the people there, most strenuously to oppose this proposal. I do so with some confidence, because at every meeting I addressed during the election I discussed this subject, and I placed before the electors unequivocally the course I intended to take if ever this disastrous proposal were introduced as applicable to the Island of Arran. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out to the Committee some circumstances which appear to me to be conclusive against the reasonableness of the proposals of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). In the first place, I attach great importance to the fact which the Lord Advocate has already communicated to the Committee—namely, that the Royal Commission did not visit Arran. It was in their power, but nevertheless they abstained from doing so. Anyone who is acquainted with the beauty and attractiveness of the Island of Arran will know that it is a most charming place, and will readily admit that not only was this an act of self-denial on their part, but that the fact of the Royal Commissioners not having
  42
  stopped their yacht there on their way round the Coast of Scotland affords conclusive evidence that in the opinion of the Commissioners the condition of the people of the Island of Arran was not such as to justify their inclusion in the present Bill. But, beyond that, there is another consideration to which I will ask the attention of the Committee. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, in making this proposal, would have pointed out the evils that were to be remedied, and that he would not have been content to rest his proposition upon general assertions or even an individual case. This Bill is intended as a remedy for districts where the life of the people is a failure, and where they have no means of obtaining subsistence. So far, however, as the people of Arran are concerned, life, instead of being a failure, is a very great success with them. They are a set of able, capable, cheerful, prosperous people; and it is in their interests that I protest against this proposal, because it assimilates their fortunes with the fortunes of those who, however estimable their qualities may be, have not made those qualities prevail in the battle of life. The evils which the Bill proposes to remedy will be found to be the following:—In the first place, that the holdings of the crofters are miserably small—so small that no man can make a livelihood out of them; next, that there are frequent evictions; thirdly, that too high a rent is exacted; and, lastly, that they are without communication with the rest of the world. These were the grievances which the Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into, and from every one of them the Island of Arran is perfectly free. I should like to give some figures, which to my mind are not only instructive but will enable the Committee to get at the root of this question. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee will admit that the first of the grievances which I have enumerated—namely, the miserable smallness of the holdings—was the principal feature of that inquiry of the Commissioners; and the best illustration I can give is the statistical account which the Commissioners give of the four parishes, as typical and characteristic of the evils they desired to remedy. According to the Report of the Royal Commission, taking the holdings under £30 rent,

  43
  85 per cent had a less rental than £6. I have obtained information of the holdings this year in the Island of Arran of a corresponding class—namely, under £30 rent—and I find that instead of 85 per cent there are only 9 per cent under £6. It is further said that in the crofting districts in the Island of Arran there is a miserable monotony of small holdings. That is not the case in Arran. There are a variety of holdings ranging from £6 a-year to a much higher figure. Is it the case that they are condemned to live where there is no other occupation? That also is distinctly not the fact; and I may tell the Committee that one of the main occupations of a large and most respectable portion of my constituents in Arran is that of letting lodgings to visitors during the summer. Therefore, instead of being destitute of any occupation except that of agriculture, they have a very agreeable and lucrative occupation during the summer months. I believe also, and it does them great credit, that they are prosperous. Another point bearing upon this question is this—that under one of the provisions of the 1st clause of the Bill a crofter is precluded from subletting his holding, and from taking benefit under it. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is under a promise to bring up a clause to deal with this matter of sub-letting; but if it is to apply to Arran, the result would be that many of these persons who give up possession of their houses for several months in the year would receive no benefit under the Bill. But, whether it applies or not, one of the chief features of distinction between the case of the people of Arran and of the crofters in the Highlands is that the former have another occupation and another source of livelihood. Then, again, there is a considerable amount of fishing, and a good deal is now being done to further the interests of the fishermen. A pier has already been put up, and a harbour will probably be soon established in Loch Ranza. Therefore, there are not among this community the privations and the absence of the opportunity for self-elevation which exist in the districts to which the Bill more properly applies. I am not going to weary the Committee by entering into an altercation with the hon. Gentleman the Mem-
  44
  ber for Caithness (Dr. Clark) as to a question of facts. I have in my recollection an incident which occurred a short time ago in reference to a statement of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman asserted that a particular individual paid £80 rent. I stated that he had never paid more than £33; but the hon. Member declined to accept my correction. In this case the hon. Member made a reference to the Duke of Hamilton. It is right to say that the community of Arran is attached to the Duke of Hamilton, who is the proprietor, by more than a mere commercial tie. The Dukes of Hamilton have been the Chiefs of the people of the Island for generations, and every man in the Island, unless he is trying to conciliate the momentary favour of a Glasgow Radical, would say that he regards the Duke of Hamilton with feelings of personal regard and friendship. I am bound to say that I do not think it is very creditable to certain politicians that they have tried their clumsy artifices on a population enjoying prosperity in attempting to stir up discontent where there is no ground for discontent. The last point I would mention as one of the objects of the investigation of the Royal Commission is the want of communication with the outer world. Fortunately, in the case of the Island of Arran there is constant steam communication, and the people of the Island see a great deal of the outer world. Their sons go out to Glasgow and elsewhere for employment, and do credit to the district to which they belong. Consequently, on that point as well, there is no similarity between the condition of the population of Arran and that of the crofters in the Highlands of Scotland. The result of applying this Bill to Arran would be most detrimental to the welfare of the community. My theory about Arran is that the Island should be for the Arran people—that the Arran people should live and thrive there. It is always said, "Arran for the Arran people;" and I oppose this Amendment, because it seems to me that to extend this Bill to Arran might lead to a gradual depletion of the population, carrying the Arran people away and substituting strangers in their place. One of the most important features of this Bill is the provision for the fixing of judicial rents. I challenge contra-

  45
  diction from anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the subject when I say that if you send down a Judicial Commission to consider what rents ought to be paid in Arran, the result would be to bring about a general raising of rents. The reason for that is this. The land of Arran is valuable, not merely for small farms, but from the attractiveness of the beautiful scenery and other characteristics it is valuable also for residences; and if this Bill is to apply to Arran, and the system of fixing judicial rents is to be adopted, it would be the duty of the Commissioners to ascertain how much a place would let for, not in view of its being a holding, but as a lodging-house, and the result would be that they would screw up these unfortunate people, who are now enjoying a moderate rent, to what would practically be a watering-place rent. Another point to which I attach special weight is this. I have said that the relations of the people and the principal proprietor of the Island are of the most harmonious character. I do not say that that is the result of special indulgence on his part. I maintain that the qualities of the people demand and deserve the treatment they receive. I would, however, ask the Committee to consider this view of the case. Suppose you in this Bill introduce the Land Commission between the people and the proprietor, and that this should have the effect of taking away the interest which the proprietor at present takes in the administration of his own estate, would the people hereafter get the same terms they get now? Would they not, under the 1st clause of the Bill, be placed in a much worse position than that which they now occupy? I am afraid that the proprietor of the Island, being deprived of his interest in the property, would be open to the temptation of putting up a villa here and a lodging-house there all over the place, and in the end the present tenants would be deprived of the advantage they now enjoy—namely, the monopoly of letting lodgings. That would, I am afraid, be the result of adopting this Amendment, and it is a result which, in the interests of these people, I should deeply deplore. I think it is only right to add that I have spoken now to the Committee in precisely the same way as I did when before my constituents at the last election. And I speak also with
  46
  a thorough knowledge of the place, having visited nearly every house in Arran. It is quite true that the people of Arran are Highlanders, and, of course, to that extent they have a distant connection with the suffering people who are the objects of this legislation. It is a natural ambition for people who are a little out-of-elbows themselves to endeavour to walk down the street alongside their better-off neighbours, and assume a distant relationship. I am prepared to do anything for those who have been less prosperous than their brethren in the Island of Arran; but I think it is a stretch of friendship to ask the people of Arran to place themselves under the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Beith) made some remarks in the early part of the discussion, and I am bound to say that I was very much surprised at the statements he made. My belief is that the effect of adopting this proposal would be to disestablish the crofters in the Island of Arran altogether, and in reality to hand over their places to others. Of course, I know very well that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the best thing you can do to any body of men is to disestablish and disendow them; and I am somewhat inclined to believe that he is desirous of applying his favourite theory to my constituents. I trust that the question will be "considered by the Committee entirely in the interests of the people of Arran, and that they will decline to back up the random statements of hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on the other side of the House—statements which, in my opinion, are met and confuted by the marked abstention of the Royal Commission from visiting the Island of Arran, even for the purpose of inquiry—an evident proof that they knew the Island required none of the remedies provided by the present Bill. The introduction of this system may be appropriate to some places, but it is not required in the Island of Arran. Its application there would simply be to throw a dark cloud over the modest prosperity at present enjoyed by the people, and which is largely due to their own virtues.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I am sorry to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Buteshire (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), that his constituents are not prepared to march through Coventry with

  47
  the rest of the population of the Highlands. Am I to understand from the Lord Advocate that the Bill will only be applicable to the places visited by the Royal Commission?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: If I said "places," I meant counties.
  DR. CAMERON: If the places visited by the Royal Commission were to be made the criterion of the extent of the operation of the Bill, we should probably have to include Glasgow and Edinburgh, as those places were visited by the Commissioners, as well as a number of other large towns, and evidence was read in relation to some of the outlying districts in the Highlands. Possibly, the fact that the Commissioners were wrecked in the gunboat placed at their disposal by the Government accounts for their not visiting Arran, and to the absence of any confirmation from that Island of the facts adduced in evidence elsewhere. It is to be regretted that the Commissioners did not visit a place which we have heard so temptingly described by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Commissioners are to be instructed to decide what are to be crofting parishes. The Royal Commissioners did not visit Arran, and consequently there is no official Report about that Island, and I apprehend that if the Bill passes, in its present form, it will be the duty of the Land Commission appointed under it to decide whether any and what parts of the country are crofting parishes, and whether Arran is properly to be considered a crofting island or parish. It seems to me that the clause which we decided a short time ago, in the shape in which it now stands, affects this matter. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, the houses in the Island of Arran are, as a matter of fact, sub-let during some portion of the year, and the people of the Island do something for themselves during the summer which would prevent them from coming within the scope of this Bill. But I wish to point out, that as we make it the duty of the Commissioners to decide what is a crofting and what is not a crofting district, there is no necessity for restricting unnecessarily the operation of the Bill by refusing to include in it what are properly Highland counties.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I would suggest to my hon. Friend the
  48
  Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) that he should add to his proposal an Amendment which stands in my name lower down—namely, to include the counties of "Nairn, Moray, Banff, Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, and Perth." It would be unadvisable, I think, to take more than one division as to which of the Highland counties are to be included. I would therefore ask my hon. Friend to amend his Amendment, by adding after Bute and Arran all the counties which are really Highland counties. I do not see any reason why there should be any limitation. They are all Highland counties, and the conditions of the crofters in them are very much the same as in the area to which the Bill at present applies. If their grievances are not so apparent, it is owing to the fact that they are endowed with greater patience than their brethren of the Western Highlands. Now, I think it is a most unfortunate principle for Parliament to go upon, that they will consider only the case of those who have made themselves troublesome, and who have been riotous and disorderly, and that while people remain quiet and orderly they will do nothing for them. It is a stimulus and encouragement to the crofters of other parts of the country who have borne their grievances quietly to follow the example of their more turbulent brethren. I will therefore propose to amend the Amendment by adding, after "Bute and Arran," the words "Nairn, Moray, Banff, Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, and Perth."
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, by adding, after the word "Arran," the words "Nairn, Moray, Banff, Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, and Perth."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  DR. CLARK: I have no objection to accept the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend, and there would then be only one division as to all the Highland counties which are proposed to be included. But I wish to say a word or two by way of reply to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buteshire (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson). In the first place, the Royal Commission merely went to the places they were asked to visit, and they were the worst districts

  49
  in the Highlands. They could not, in the time they had at their disposal, visit the Islands in the South-West, because they started at Skye, and by the time they got to Lewis they had lost their gunboat. For this reason they held meetings in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and at the latter place they received information as to Islay and Mull and other Islands. If the argument for the exclusion of Arran holds good, it would apply equally to Islay and other Islands as large. As to the condition of Arran, I do not agree with the rose-coloured picture the hon. and learned Member has drawn to day. I know Arran quite as well as the hon. and learned Gentleman, and my view is very different from that which he has presented. It is somewhat curious how very inaccurate the hon. and learned Gentleman is in regard to his facts. When the hon. Member for Lanarkshire raised this question some time ago I corrected the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I feel called upon to do so again. In regard to the case of the crofter whose rent was sought to be raised on his making a building improvement, what I said was that the rent was raised to £80; but that sum was never paid, because my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow raised the question, and the landlord at once offered to reduce it. He proposed £40, and it now stands at £33. We have been told about the relations of the Duke of Hamilton with his tenants in the Island of Arran. I will remind the hon. and learned Member that for 15 years prior to 1880 the estate was managed by a trustee, and not by the Duke. During this time a small crofter, who had a croft of 18 acres, pulled down a black house and built a white one, and at the end of a short lease he had his rent raised from £18 to £33, and that was not for anything done by the Duke. There was not one aero added to the farm, and the increased rent was simply attempted to be put on because the tenant had pulled down a black house and erected a white one. The property thus built was sought to be stolen or legally confiscated by his Grace, who is a Prince, and holds two or three Dukedoms. It was an immoral act, and if the Duke had got what he ought to get he would have been imprisoned for stealing. By-and-bye I hope to see the law applied to Dukes as well as to pick-
  50
  pockets. If the Committee refuse to put the tenants of the Duke of Hamilton into this Bill, all the crofters there may share the fate of this poor man, and if they do anything to their farms they may have their property confiscated. I have no objection to the course the Lord Advocate is taking in refusing Amendments, because the result will be that in the next Parliament there will be more extreme men than now appear. We, the moderate men, will give way to the extreme men, and, instead of us, you will have men representing the Land Restoration League in Scotland, who now come to our meetings and fight against us, as we are fighting the landlords. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate upon the part he is taking in playing into the hands of the Land Restoration League. By-and-bye the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that he has a very different class of men to deal with than the moderate men who now represent the Highland crofters. We are told there is to be a pier at Loch Ranza, but that pier at Loch Ranza will not give the poor fishermen milk for their children. When we are passing a measure which is to give practical perpetuity of tenure to the crofter, and prevent his landlord from disestablishing him, are we to be told that it is either just or equitable to exclude from it the Island of Arran? The Duke of Hamilton holds the whole of that Island and uses it for sport, having the crofters entirely at his mercy. One year the rent is raised and the next the deer come down and eat all the corn. What is the use of passing a Hares and Rabbits Act when, as long as these men are tenants at will, the moment they complain they are turned out? The condition of the crofters in the Island of Arran is exactly that of the crofters in those parts of the Highlands to which the Bill applies. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) that the Bill should apply to all Highland counties equally, and we could, by adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend, settle the question of their inclusion by one division. In order to secure that object, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment in favour of his.
  SIR DONALD CURRIE: I understand that the Amendment which I have on the Paper for including

  51
  the county of Perth will be virtually set aside by a decision upon the proposal of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who desires to add words that will include the counties of Nairn, Moray, Banff, Aberdeen, Kincardine, and Forfar, as well as Perth. If that Amendment be rejected by the Committee, I shall be debarred from moving the addition of Perth to the Bill; and I will, therefore, venture to place before the Committee as briefly as I can, upon the present Amendment, the reasons which induce me to desire to bring Perth within the scope of the measure. In regard to Arran, I resided there for several years, and I do not know that there are many places in the Highlands which claim more consideration than Arran. I have known crofters there who have had their crofts damaged by the depredations of deer; and I have also seen their crops damaged by game, both ground and winged. With regard to Perthshire, I may not only be debarred from moving my Amendment, but I may be told by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) that the Royal Commission did not visit it. Being an inland county, they could not very well get there by boat, but they could have got there by railway. It certainly appears to me that the Commission did not extend its visits to all the districts requiring examination, by reason of the approach of the latter days of August, and the desire expressed by the Government that they should terminate their labours. The Commissioners consequently stayed their investigation, and the counties of Perth and Aberdeen as well as the Island of Arran were not favoured with a visit. But the necessity was there all the same, and the grievance of the Perthshire crofters is none the less a grievance than that which is felt by the crofters of other parts of the Highlands. I have received from a factor in the county a letter in which he urges that Perthshire, at least that part of it known as the Highlands of Perthshire, should be included in the area covered by this Bill, as the position of the Perthshire crofters is, in some instances, just the same as that of other crofters. They are less demonstrative, and they are law-abiding men. A clergyman in the county has also written to me on the subject, say-
  52
  ing that it is to him a great mystery that such a county should be excluded, and expressly mentioning that there are hundreds of crofters whose grievances call for redress. A deputation of crofters not very far from my own residence have represented to me that they are most anxious that the Bill should be extended to Perthshire, and begging me to do all that I can in their behalf. A good deal has been said about the historic basis; but if there is any part of Scotland which claims historic associations it is Perthshire. During the French War some 3,000 fencibles were raised from the districts within the district of Breadalbane. The Black Watch was embodied as a regiment at Aberfeldy. At the famous reception of Her Majesty at Taymouth Castle by the first Marquess of Breadalbane there were 1,000 of his men in uniform to receive her; and now how many of that class could be got together in that district? If it is desirable to give the benefit of this Bill to the crofters in the West Highlands, it is right to extend it to Perthshire; and I therefore press on the attention of the Committee the claim of my Amendment for the addition of Perthshire to Clause 16.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I think, that as one of the Members for the county of Aberdeen, I am entitled to claim the indulgence of the Committee; but I do not propose to detain them at any considerable length. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Division (Dr. Farquharson) well knows, there are more agricultural holdings in Aberdeen than in any other county in Scotland, and if there is any county which deserves the consideration of the Legislature, it is Aberdeen. Many of the tenants are very small tenants. They are extremely enterprizing, and have turned a barren desert into one of the most productive counties in the Kingdom. I desire, then, to call the attention of the Committee to the precise position in which the crofters of Aberdeen stand in regard to this matter. At the meeting of the Scotch Members, it was quite understood that all of what are called Highland counties would be included within the scope of the Bill, and that there was no object in excluding them. I do not propose to reply to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Buteshire (Mr. J. P. B. Robert-

  53
  son), but I would ask him to accept the Reference to the Royal Commission as entirely applicable to the county of Aberdeen. The hon. and learned Gentleman was returned to Parliament as a Representative who had nothing to do with the Crofters' Question. I, on the other hand, was elected as a crofters' candidate, and was hard pressed to give full consideration to every question which can affect the interests of the agricultural labourers and the crofters. I hold in my hand letters from large communities in Aberdeenshire which take a deep interest in these matters, and have held public meetings in support of the crofters' claims. Representations upon the subject have come to me from communities of crofters varying in number from 35 to 100, and the Resolutions they have passed in favour of legislation have been forwarded to me. It is only right that I should direct the attention of the Committee to these facts. We have been told that we may save ourselves any trouble with regard to the Islands of Bute and Arran, and the hon. and learned Member for Buteshire has told us that the people of Arran do not want this legislation applied to them. But what are the facts in regard to the county of Aberdeen? If that county is included within the scope of the Bill, it will be necessary before the legislation can take effect that the crofters must make an application to the Land Commission, and appear before the Commission to state their case. But why should the people of Aberdeen be excluded because the people of Bute and Arran do not choose to come under the Bill? Those who are in charge of the Bill will be safeguarded in every way. I do not ask that the crofters of Aberdeen shall have all the advantages of the Bill conferred upon them. All I ask is that we should not pass an Act of Parliament which will expressly exclude them. There is no reason that I can see for so doing, except the reason which is apparent from the Benches opposite that anything that is done for the agricultural labourer, the crofter, or the tenant, should be opposed. We have a Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) on the Treasury Bench, who will vote for us, and all the Northern Members are practically in favour of including Aberdeenshire. I submit, therefore, that it would be a most reasonable concession. I have never adopted the course
  54
  of railing at the landlords. I believe that many of them, considering the circumstances in which they have been placed, have acted generously and benevolently, and have studied the interests of their tenants as far as they could; but all landlords are not alike, and what we want is that those who have not displayed an equal amount of generosity should be compelled by the Legislature to follow the example of their neighbours. It is upon that ground that I claim the indulgence of the Committee; and, seeing that every interest is safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill, I do hope that there will scarcely be an hon. Member who will feel himself called upon to vote for the exclusion of these Highland counties. It ought to be very easy to convince the Committee that there can be no justification for excluding any Highland county from a right to demand at the hands of the Land Commission a consideration of its claims. That is all that we ask—namely, that Parliament should give us the right of having our case heard. In one of the letters which I have received it is stated that about 50 years ago 37 crofters took from a proprietor 20 acres of land, for which they paid 20 s. a-year, or 1s. per acre. Having held the land for 10 years the rent was raised to £4 a-year, and at the end of another term of 10 years it was raised to £10 a-year. At the present moment the rent is £14, and yet during the whole of this period not 1s. has been spent upon it by the proprietor. Every 1d. for improvements has been expended by the tenants. Do these men require no consideration or thought? No injury whatever can be inflicted upon the landlord, because he already receives 14 s. for what was originally worth 1s. Why, then, should nothing be done for the crofters, and upon what grounds should the Committee exclude these Northern counties from the benefits of the Bill? If they do not make out a case before the Commission their application will not be attended to, and if they cannot show that their grievances are substantial and deserve consideration they will get no redress. I am not going to hold out any threat; but I do seriously warn the Committee that, as has been said already, the agricultural classes have been long suffering in Aberdeenshire; that they have now come to this House with a de-

  55
  demand for this concession, and if Parliament consents to grant it, it will do a great deal to satisfy the wants and wishes of a most deserving class of the community.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: As that part of Aberdeenshire which I have the honour to represent is deeply interested in this question, I feel it my duty to say a few words in support of the claim of that county to be included in the Bill. I had myself given Notice of an Amendment to this effect, and should certainly have moved it if the opportunity had offered. I think it is very unfortunate that the Lord Advocate should have proposed to exclude any county on the mere ground that the Royal Commission had not visited it in the course of its investigations. The voyage of the Commissioners was necessarily limited, owing to the accident which befel the vessel that took them out; but I do not see that it can do the Bill any harm by extending its provisions to other Highland counties which come strictly within the basis of the conditions laid down for the guidance of the Royal Commission. I maintain that the county which I represent strictly carries out all these conditions. We have heard a good deal from the other side of the House about the historical basis of the Bill, and if that is to be adhered to, surely there are few counties in Scotland with greater historical associations than Aberdeenshire. The Aberdeen Free Press has published a series of events which have happened in connection with the county, which show that in many districts there used formerly to be crofters, but that they have now been evicted owing to the large clearances which have been made for the sake of getting rid of small farms and holdings. In many instances the land has been reclaimed by the crofter without the slightest help from his landlord, and the position of the Aberdeenshire small tenants gives them every right to claim the benefits of the Bill. They have pasturage in common with others, and they are absolutely defenceless against evictions and other evils of that kind. I do not endorse everything that has been said against the landlords. I do not think that all landlords are desirous any more than I to look upon all tenants as angels. Very often a landlord may be tied down by a trust, or he may
  56
  employ a factor, and is unable to give effect to his generous impulses. These small crofts are generally very much coveted, and like Naboth's vineyard are often liable to be swallowed up by larger and richer neighbours. They certainly ought, in my opinion, to be placed in a secure position of defence against the encroachments to which they are subjected. We have heard to-night that the people of Aberdeen are peaceable, orderly, and law-abiding. It is hard indeed that they should be told, in consequence, that before their grievances can command consideration they must adopt tactics which have only been too successful in other places. I think it would be most unfortunate to teach them that that is their only means of obtaining the redress of their grievances. We know very well how narrow the margin is which keeps these people from starvation, and we should not only be prepared to approach them in a kindly spirit, but to welcome gladly any proposal made in this House to relieve their wants. It is solely in the interests of the tenants and small farmers that I have made these remarks; and if the Lord Advocate has made up his mind not to accept this Amendment, I think it only right that the Representatives of county constituencies in Scotland which contain persons in precisely the same position as those whose case is dealt with by the Bill, should let the right hon. and learned Gentleman know what the wishes of their constituents are.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question put, "That the words 'Bute, Arran, Nairn, Moray, Banff, Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, and Perth,' be inserted after the word 'Argyll.'"
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 87; Noes 126: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 79.)
  MR. RAMSAY&c.): The object I have principally in view in moving the Amendment in my name is to exclude from the operation of the Act the Islands of Islay, Jura, and Colonsay. No reason can be shown for including them; there has been no disputation and no complaints with regard to holdings in these Islands; there has been no resistance to the law there; I have never seen a more law-abiding population, and I have lived amongst

  57
  them all my life, and can therefore speak with confidence; but I shall not dwell upon those particulars any further. The Islands I refer to are a district of the county of Argyll, and under the Roads and Bridges Act were regarded as a county in themselves. I do not think that it is at all disrespectful to the Royal Commission to state that it was never contemplated they would deal with any area which they neither examined nor visited. It has been stated that there may have been a statement with regard to the Islands; but I must say that I never heard of any such thing, and I do not believe that the Royal Commission ever took any evidence from a single owner or occupier on the Islands. Indeed, they never went near the Islands, which are within three or four hours' sail of the adjacent coast I am quite sure my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot say that the Bill was framed to bring these Islands within its scope. Then I may say that there is no resident lawyer in the Islands, which shows that they are not a litigious people; there is no Sheriff there, and therefore I think there will be some difficulty in carrying out the Act there, because in every clause of it the Bill involves questions of a legal kind. I have been for 50 years living in these Islands, and know the people; and during that time I was never in a Court of Law as a suitor, and, therefore, I think my right hon. and learned Friend will see that it is rather doing an injustice to include the Islands in question within the scope of the Bill. The probability is that the Royal Commission felt that they ought not to go to places which they considered it was unnecessary to visit. But they might well have done so. In the Northern Islands one-fourth of the total population is almost dependent on charity for their subsistence. I saw a report in The Times that a house was destroyed a few days since by some crofters in the Lews; but in these Islands we have had nothing of that kind. The people are not to be supposed to be absolutely contented with the position in which they are placed, but they are paying their rents regularly. I therefore do not think that this Act will do good for a single poor man in the Hebrides, although it may do good for some of the richer men, by giving them fixity of
  58
  tenure and fair rent; and I say that I have not had a single complaint from any one of my small occupiers, nor do I believe that in any of the Islands a single complaint has been made. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will assent to the Amendment which I now beg to move—
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 32, after the word "parishes," to insert the words "but this Act shall not apply to any island which was neither visited or examined by the Crofter Commission."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): We cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. I am not aware exactly what the number of the Western Islands is; but I know it is considerable, and there were some, of course, which the Royal Commission not only did not, but could not, visit. They took the counties by sample and did not visit the whole. So that the fact that an Island was not visited by the Commissioners does not show that it should be excluded from the scope of the Bill. Then my hon. Friend said that the steamer passed very near his Island without landing. I suppose it must have done the same with regard to all the Islands on the West Coast where they did not land; but that is no reason for omitting the Islands in question from the Bill. I contend that there must be a certain arbitrariness in the localities to which a measure of this kind applies. I may be permitted to remark that if the prosperity of these Islands is such as my hon. Friend has represented, we need not have any fear that judicial rent will be fixed, because the people will not apply for it.
  MR. RAMSAY: I feel the truth of what my right hon. and learned Friend says; but I point out that the Royal Commission did visit every other Island in the Hebrides to which their Report applies; and their Report does not apply to those Islands which I have mentioned, nor to certain others. My right hon. and learned Friend says he cannot assent to this Amendment, but I think it is nothing but just that he should do so. I do not see that this Bill is likely to benefit a single poor man in the Hebrides, although, as I have said, it may do some good for the richer class.
  DR. R. MACDONALD: I am under the necessity of saying that I have not heard the speech of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay); hut, looking at the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper, I point out, what I presume is, the fault of the printer—namely, that its grammatical construction is not correct. I wish to let the Committee understand what is the meaning of this Amendment. It is that the hon. Gentleman is unblushingly drawing himself out of this Act. But in the first place I ought to apologize to the hon. Gentleman for what I stated in this House the other night. My statement was made on the word of a man who knew the parish, and I am sorry that I had no other data to go upon. But we shall see from the Report of the Royal Commission what is the condition of the place. It says—
  "If you look at the population tables from 1831 to 1881 you will not find that the parish of Kildalton and Oa keeps up its population which it had in 1851; but as soon as Mr. Ramsay became proprietor and founded a residence for himself at the head of Loch a Chnoic, we see the same rule applied which Webster and the trustees applied so successfully to the rest of the Island, and in a few years after his succession the population falls off from 3,310 to 2,283, more than 1,000 disappearing from the Returns. But these figures do not tell the story in full. In the division of the estate called Oa, and which is outside entirely of the wretched village of Port Ellen, there are only 15 farmers and 23 cottars, where there used to be 99 farmers and 66 cottars; 38 families where there were 163. Angus M'Cuaig, blacksmith at Gleann a Mhuiluin, told me that in one of the little townships he shod 36 horses where he now shoes four, and not merely this land is not inhabited, but there is a covering of rushes on it which renders it incapable of supporting the stock which should be available for the feeding of the people elsewhere. It is not tilled, and the grazing as elsewhere has become too bad for sheep and cattle, and the chief use I saw it put to was yielding rushes with which to thatch the corn stacks of Cornabus and Lag a Mhuiluin; and let me not forget to state that so far from the land set free, and at the disposal of Mr. Ramsay, being bestowed to enlarge the crofts or farms said to be too small, the whole of the 82 holdings have gone to augment the previously existing large farms of Cornabus, Kina-bus, and Kintrea, and to form another large one. So that even so intelligent a man as Mr. Ramsay is not to be trusted to make the best use of his possessions. Those three farms were large enough previously, and two of them occupied by two of that class of gentlemen farmers who were related to some of the leading families of the county."
  Well, Sir, this evidence was given before
  60
  the Commission, in reference to this Island and the district, especially which is owned by the hon. Member. I wish to read another statement contained in a letter from Mr. Donald Ross, Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools, which will show what was the educational condition of the Island on the 4th of August, 1875. The Report addressed to the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education is as follows:—
  "Sir,—I beg to call your special attention to the very unsatisfactory state of this school. At least three of the other inspected schools in this parish are barely efficient. In my Report last year on Port Ellen public school, I referred to the unhealthy character of the building and the locality; but though the speedy removal of the children to a healthier spot was urgently needed, no action of a serious or hopeful nature has been taken. There is a grave responsibility attached to this delay, for, as was inevitable, fevers of a very bad type and other epidemics have swept away a number of the children during the year, and paralyzed the efficiency of the school. Thus, in opening the log-book at random, I find that deaths occurred from fever on the 5th, 6th, and 9th of November, and on the 7th and 8th of December. A panic seized the school, for on the 12th and 13th of November there were only three pupils present, and the number of the teachers was three. Afterwards the school was removed to a healthier spot—namely, the Free Church behind the village; but on the day of inspection it was back in its old quarters. Some of the children were absent through illness, and the assistant master was just recovering. In a school with three male teachers, a head master of remarkably high character, popular, and esteemed in the place, an assistant, and a pupil teacher, only 25 children could be present for individual examination. The cause of all this is a very complex one:—1. The building, which is very bad. 2. A locality which is very unhealthy. 3. The village of Port Ellen. This village is not supplied with water, unless the little which the natives bring more than a-quarter of a mile in pitchers be a supply. It is badly drained if it is drained at all. It has all the ordinary marks of poverty and neglect, and others peculiarly its own. Disease perpetually nestling in its filth will impair the efficiency of the new schools, as it has impaired for several years that of the old. I am unfortunately very familiar with schools crippled with gross neglect on the part of the local sanitary authorities, and I am not sure that there is an authority of the kind here; but this is the worst case in most respects known to me. It is no pleasure to me to inspect such a school as this, far less to write such a Report as this.
  DONALD ROSS."
  Here, then, we have two independent Reports as to the state of this favoured Island, to which we are told it is not necessary to apply this Bill. The hon. Member for Falkirk tells us that there

  61
  is no litigation, no Sheriff, and no lawyer there. Well, then, it must be blest indeed. But I have authority for stating that all the crofters who have been evicted from the estate of the hon. Member previously signed a paper stating that they would consent to eviction without going through the ordinary course, and that they did so without knowing what was its effect. I am sorry to occupy the attention of the Committee with these matters. But the hon. Member has himself to thank, for if he had not brought forward such a proposal as is now before us, we should not have shown the nakedness of his estate.
  MR. RAMSAY: Perhaps I may be allowed to make some explanation after the serious charges which the hon. Gentleman has brought against me on this and previous occasions. The hon. Gentleman has said he was mistaken in the statements which he made the other night. I suppose he refers to the charge made against me of having burned some widow woman to death. [Dr. R. MACDONALD: I apologized for that.] Yes; and I think if the hon. Member knew the truth, he would have great reason to apologize for the other charges he has made against me to-night. As to the school reported on by Mr. Ross, it was a school paid for by myself, and not a public school in any other sense than that it was a denominational school. Two of the schools in the parish at the date referred to were built at my own expense; and I do not think it could be held that it was neglect of the cause of education on my part that constituted any justification for the Report. The state of things which the Inspector referred to was brought under the notice of the Department in London by myself; and at the time I complained of his mode of inspecting the school, the remarks he made about myself, and his efforts to stimulate the people to discontent. But I do not wish to say anything about him now, because the man has been in his grave many years; and I repeat that these were things brought up at too distant date for me to have anything to do with them at the present time. As to the condition of the village, the houses are not my property, they chiefly belong to the people themselves, and the charge with regard to the sanitary arrangements is a charge
  62
  against the people of Port Ellen, and not against me. I do not know that any owner of the soil would be to blame for the state of the houses in which the people live; and, moreover, many of the people have not paid me ground rent for a long time past. The sanitary arrangements, so far as they exist, were made at my expense; and I recollect, shortly after buying the property, going over the houses in the lowest part of the village, and ordering drains to be made, and perforated stones to be placed at the door of each house for the purpose of getting rid of the refuse, and enabling the people to keep their houses more tidy and clean than they were when I saw them. I did that, as I have said, at my own expense. The hon. Gentleman speaks very much about things which have not been done; but I must say that I have taken an interest not only in the condition of the people on my estate, which it was natural that I should do, but I have also done what I could to advance the interests of the locality. Notwithstanding all the defects pointed to by the hon. Member, I spent large sums of money on the works to which reference has been made; and when I bought the property, there was no road along the seashore, but I have since made one. Well, Sir, I might say more about myself; but I do not like to have personal matters discussed in this House. The time of the House is too valuable for that, and I willingly leave the charges as to burning the widow woman and evicting 400 crofters to be verified by the experience of those who choose to visit the Island and inquire as to the nature of those fictions narrated against me by the hon. Member.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I rise merely for the purpose of suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs that he would do well by withdrawing this Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I also venture to express a hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. It is quite clear that by the very framework of the Bill some injustice must be done. Everyone who has listened to the discussion will admit that the hon. Member is a good landlord; but he is not the only good landlord who is affected by the Bill. No

  63
  doubt, if they could, the Government would be only too ready to exclude him; but they are probably doing what they are obliged to do, and therefore I trust the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HUNTER: I rise to propose the omission of the last paragraph of this clause. The objectionable part of the clause is the words which relate to tenants of holdings "at the passing of this Act," because the effect of these words is that the operation of the Bill is confined to persons who are at the passing of the Act tenants of holdings. The hon. Member for Edinburgh argued against freedom of sale, on the ground that it would involve great hardship on future tenants; but it turned out that the Bill does not apply to future tenancies at all. We were very much surprised on looking at the Bill to find that the operation of the Act would be limited to those who were tenants at the passing of the Act. Take the case of a man who becomes a crofter the day before the passing of the Act. What are the rights which this Bill confers upon him? In the first place, it confers upon him the right that he cannot be evicted for any arbitrary reason by his landlord, but only for just cause as set forth in the Bill. Another right is that he can apply to the Land Commission to fix a fair rent, which is clearly defined as rent that does not include the value of the tenant's improvements. He is therefore protected with regard to the value of his own property. Thirdly, under certain conditions he may happily acquire additional land. Now, Sir, I ask why a person who becomes a crofter two days later—that is to say, the day after the Bill is passed—should not have security of tenure, protection against being rented on his own improvements, and an opportunity of obtaining more land? I should like to hear from the Lord Advocate any just distinction that can be drawn between the two cases. It appears to me that if the tenant who becomes a holder two days before the passing of the Act is to have these rights, there is no just reason why they should not be conferred on the man who becomes a tenant a day or two afterwards. The latter is under the same conditions as the former; he is
  64
  open to the same danger of having his property appropriated by the landlord, stands in equal need of fixity of tenure, and may equally require more land. The only protection that the man has who becomes a crofter after the passing of the Act is the protection under the Agricultural Holdings Act (Scotland), and what protection that is the Committee may understand from a single instance. In one case a small tenant sued for improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Act; he claimed £8, was allowed £6, and the costs amounted to £48. But I should like to know what is the difference in principle which gives the security I have mentioned to one man and denies it to another who enters upon precisely the same position a day or two afterwards? If the security is a good thing for the one it is a good thing for the other. What mysterious agency, then, changes its character and makes it a bad thing for the man who becomes a crofter after the passing of the Act? I have been trying my ingenuity to discover what possible reason the Government can have for making this distinction in time and circumstances. But the secret, I think, is not far to find—the Bill is merely a sop to Cerberus. If we study the structure of the Bill we shall find it is a measure, the operation of which is strictly, rigorously, and religiously confined to the area of disorder and disturbance. In parts visited by Her Majesty's Marines, where there has been threatening of landlords, deforcement of Sheriffs' officers, and where the rents have been withheld, there the beneficence of the Government is felt, but in no other part of Scotland. Throughout these discussions the Lord Advocate has rejected all the Amendments supported by the unanimous opinion of the North of Scotland. Out of 16 Members representing constituencies North of Forfar the Government throughout seven days' discussion have only been able to carry into the Lobby with them four Members. I do not take all the divisions, but I take what are fair and typical divisions, and I find that in three cases the Government have been able to get four Members, in three cases two Members, and in two cases none. I maintain that the opinion of the North of Scotland is entirely opposed to the course the Lord Advocate is taking; and I say it would have been wiser of the

  65
  right hon. and learned Gentleman if he had not despised public opinion in the North of Scotland. Why is it that we have now reached the seventh day of this discussion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney. I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman is confining himself to the Amendment before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is travelling rather wide of the Amendment.
  MR. HUNTER: I should be wanting in my duty to the Lord Advocate if I were not to warn him of the consequences of rejecting this Amendment. There is a limit to the forbearance of the most devoted followers, and that limit is being rapidly readied on this occasion. Before I sit down I wish to seriously ask those independent Members of the Liberal Party who have allowed themselves to be led into the Lobby with the Tories and the Government to pause and consider whether they also are to take a part in opposition to the opinion of the entire North of Scotland. I maintain there is no element in this question which ought to be considered more than the opinion of the North of Scotland. That opinion is entirely against the Lord Advocate, and simply because he has framed his Bill on the narrowest possible lines. By restrictions and qualifications he has rendered nugatory those parts of the Bill which might be of use and benefit to the crofters.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 1, to leave out from the word "within," to the word "lease," in line 4.—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'within the parishes to which this Act is determined to apply as aforesaid,' stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): There is a good deal that the hon. Member has said that I think I may perfectly well leave to the judgment of the Committee. I do not know that I can say much, or anything at all, about it. But as regards the real merits of this matter I should like to make a few remarks. In the first place, with respect to this provision in the Bill. I do not very well understand how it should have required anything in the nature of a discovery
  66
  for an hon. Gentleman, who himself is a skilled lawyer, to find out at a late stage what the scope of the application of this provision is, because both in the Bill of last year and in this Bill it has been declared to apply to crofters who were tenants of holdings at the passing of this Act, and to their heirs. That is very distinct, and, of course, shows that it does not apply to contracts made after the passing of the Act, for a reason which, whether good or bad, presented itself to the Government, and also, I think, to the judgment of the House. The reason why the definition both in last year's Bill and of this year's Bill is of such a character is that no other definition would be consistent either with the theory of the Bill, or with what we regard as the justification of the Bill. If it had been intended to introduce a provision to declare that everyone who either was at the time of this Act passing, or who afterwards became a tenant of land in Scotland, should acquire fixity of tenure, the right to fair rent and the right to an enlargement of his holding, that would have been intelligible. That is not a provision of our Bill. That would have been a much larger proposal than we make. We desire to recognize in a generous spirit what is not a strict historical title, but what we believe to be a certain historical usage. We are prepared to say that those who are in the position of crofters shall get all these benefits; and not only so, but that all those who are the heirs of crofters should get all the benefits of the Bill. I may here say that I propose to move an Amendment, the object of which is to extend the definition of heirs so as to include heirs by bequest. Anyone who knows anything of the Highlands will be aware that that is a remarkable and comprehensive definition. The extent of Highland families, of Highland cousinship, is proverbial; and, therefore, I think my proposal will take in everybody who has any sort of historical connection with a place. Now, just observe what the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Hunter) means. It is not quite correct to say it will not apply to future holders; his extension must be intended to cover the case where strangers take holdings. Let us see what that amounts to. What would be the consequence if it were proposed that anyone, whether crofter or otherwise, who took a holding after the

  67
  passing of the Act, and who, by a fresh contract held from year to year, should come under the operation of the Bill? It would be this—a person contracts with the landlord that he shall have a particular area of ground for a year at a certain rent. If the Bill applied to such a case, the man having made the contract to-day may to-morrow say—"I claim this land not for a year, but for perpetuity. I claim it not at the rent I agreed to yesterday, but at a fair rent to be fixed. I claim not the area I agreed yesterday to rent, but an enlarged area." In short, the hon. Member's (Mr. Hunter's) proposal is that a man, a new comer, who to-day contracts for certain things as regards area, rent, and duration, shall be entitled to-morrow to overcome all the essentials of his contract.
  MR. HUNTER: There is a subsequent Amendment which shows that that is not the proposition I make.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: We will consider that Amendment when we come to it. What I have stated would be the effect of striking out the words in question. I quite admit that by a subsequent Amendment the hon. Gentleman gives seven years as the period during which the lease is not to be altered. What I have stated would be the effect of striking out the words proposed to be left out, and making the clause applicable to all crofters, no matter what time they came. While, therefore, I do not retract what I have said, I quite admit that in respect of the seven years, but only in respect of that point, are my criticisms inapplicable. Now, I put it to the judgment of the Committee, is there any example of such a thing in any civilized country? I say there is not. ["Yes; the Irish Act."] I think it will be found on an examination of the clauses that future tenancies are very much more restricted in the Irish Act than they are by anything suggested here. Of course, there was nothing like the boon given by the Irish Act as by this Bill. ["Oh!"] Well, there was no permanency of tenancy given, but only a lease equivalent to 15 years. There was no additional land given; but, however that may be, what I have laid before the Committee will be the effect of this proposal. The hon. Member has referred to the manner in which I have, on the part of the Government,
  68
  conducted this Bill. That is a matter I am quite willing to leave to the judgment of the Committee. As to the opinion of the North of Scotland, I must say I should pay very great respect to the opinion of any part of the country of which I have the honour to be a native; but, of course, the opinion of Parliament must be taken as a whole; in arriving at our decision we must be guided by the wish of the whole country. I have no doubt that upon this Amendment the mind of the Committee is perfectly open to argument and conviction. I cannot but think the Committee will see that to strike out these words would not be consistent with the theory on which the Bill was framed, upon which it was presented to the House, and upon which the House was persuaded to give it a second reading. I venture to say that whatever the judgment of the Committee may be I should regard it as a distinct breach of faith with the House if the Government were voluntarily to accept a proposition which would convert the Bill into something different from what was intended. I really do not think the acceptance of the proposal would be in the interests of the persons who are likely to become crofters themselves, because if it is to be said that no landlord can in future let a piece of land on certain terms as to duration and as to rent, without the person with whom he has made his bargain being entitled to ask that his land should be increased, his rent altered, and that he should have a permanency, I fear that landlords will cease to let such land at all, and there will be great risk of much injury being done to the crofters.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think the Committee must be pretty well convinced by this time of the worthlessness of this Bill. The Lord Advocate has referred to the promises held out when the Bill was introduced. What were those promises? Why, that the Bill was to deal with the grievances of the Highlanders. As a matter of fact we have seen, clause by clause, provisions calculated to remedy these grievances practically withdrawn, and I say deliberately that the Bill as it will pass through Committee will not be worth the time we have spent upon it. It will not settle this question. It may be considered a sop to the Highlanders; but I do not think it will prevent disturbances. Parliament will have to con-

  69
  sider this question again almost immediately. It is a great pity that the House should spend seven nights of valuable time upon a Bill which is really of so little practical value. That is the conclusion at which I have arrived. The historical argument I consider a pleasant fiction on the part of the Government. No doubt there is a certain amount of historical tradition on the subject; but the same historical tradition applies with equal force to every district of Scotland. Why, then, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not apply the Bill to the whole of Scotland? I regard this Bill as one of an altogether exceptional character, and in that respect I quite agree with hon. Members opposite. I do not like the Bill on economic grounds; but to prevent society in the Highlands falling to pieces it is necessary that Parliament should step in. The only justification for interfering in the manner proposed is to put the Land Question on a sound footing. Under the scheme which the Lord Advocate has adopted the landlords will be free to rack-rent all the new tenants. ["Oh!"] There is no reason why we should not expect that the landlords will rack-rent in the future, as they have done in the past. They will do so, and Parliament will have to interfere again. All this difficulty has arisen from the mistaken policy of the Government in refusing to adopt the principle of free sale. If they had adopted this principle the matter would have gone on very much according to economic law. They have, instead, adopted the principle of compensation, a system which has already broken down under the Act which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate passed through the House some years ago. After the experience of that Act it is foolish to proceed with this Bill upon the basis of compensation. Sir, I think it would have been well for the Government to accept the principle of free sale once for all, and thus get themselves out of the difficulty in which they now find themselves with regard to future tenancies. If they had done so, the provisions of the Bill would have been of such a character that they would have been self-acting. But as the Bill stands, so far as we have gone, I say deliberately it is really not worth the time the House of Commons has spent upon it;
  70
  and the sooner it is thrown aside the better. It will do nothing appreciable to remedy the grievances which are complained of in the Highlands.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I agree with what has just been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). What I am afraid of is that this Bill will disturb all past relations, and will not settle future relations. That is the danger. I am anxious, whatever hon. Gentlemen may think, that this Bill, or any other Bill dealing with the crofters, should be a complete settlement of the question. I have had occasion many times to say something in disparagement of this Bill. I will read to the Lord Advocate a Resolution passed at a meeting in the Highlands—a copy of which has been forwarded to me; it is an example of scores of Resolutions I have received, dealing with this Bill in much stronger language than I have ever used. The Resolution is as follows:—"That this Convention of Lewis delegates—"
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that there is a specific Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. MACFARLANE: If you rule, Sir, that it is not competent for me to discuss the general scope of the Bill upon a specific Amendment, I must adhere strictly to the Amendment. I understood, however, the Lord Advocate to depart rather from that Rule on this very question; he went into other subjects besides that dealt with by this Amendment. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) that this Amendment is essential; and if, Sir, you will not permit me to express the opinion of the people to whom the Bill is to apply I must bow to your ruling.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I should like to say a word or two upon this particular Amendment. Although I may agree with very much of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen, we must admit they have not altogether confined themselves to the proposition now before the Committee. The object of this particular Amendment is to put future tenants on the same footing as existing tenants. If this were done landlords will never permit any more crofters to settle on their land. It is the fact that in the Irish Act future

  71
  tenants were not put on the same footing as present tenants; they were not to have that complete fixity of tenure and other privileges which were given to existing tenants. On the other hand, I think the Government made a very great mistake in depriving future tenants of all compensation for improvements. I hope something will yet be done to remedy this defeat.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I do not suppose my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would have the slightest objection to extend the Bill so as to cover compensation for any improvements future tenants may make, if such a matter came within the scope of the Bill, and if it were at all necessary. But I want to call attention to what seems to be entirely overlooked here—namely, that the Bill is based upon what are believed to be rights belonging to a certain people, which rights have been somehow or other taken away. If the Bill is not based on such an idea as that there is no ground for it at all. If that be so, what possible claim can future tenants have who have no historical rights, real or imaginary, to be imported into the Bill, and placed exactly on the same footing as existing tenants? To import such people into the Bill would be practically to alter the whole scope and intention of the measure, as stated in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) made in introducing the measure, and as maintained consistently, and I must say with great force, by the Lord Advocate throughout these discussions. But we are surfeited with the protestations of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that the Bill is such that it is not worth going on with it. We are weary of such protestations. If hon. Gentleman really believe the crofters in the Highlands do not wish this Bill to pass let them have it thrown out.
  DR. CLARK: We will try to throw it out.
  MR. HUNTER: The historical theory conjured up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) is one to which I attach no importance at all; I think the Legislature should legislate to meet the wants and necessities of the present time. Reference has
  72
  been made to Ireland, and to the fact that there is no provision for future tenants in the Irish Act. But provision does not require to be made for future tenants in that Act, because in Ireland there is free sale. I contend that the right hon. Gentleman did not give a shadow or shred of reason to justify the iniquitous distinction made between existing and future crofters. The only reason I can assign for it is that in the case of the existing crofters there is a reasonable presumption that they have either taken part in disorder themselves or encouraged others to do so, whereas future tenants have not done so. A more mischievous principle was never inserted in a Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 70: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 80.)
  DR. CLARK: Mr. Courtney, I accept the challenge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), and move that you do now report Progress. The Bill is a delusion and a sham, and we will not be parties to anything which will perpetuate the present unsatisfactory state of things in the Highlands. We move to report Progress because the Bill will not prove a solution of the question, and because we are simply wasting the time of the House by discussing it. We are told that this measure is based upon the theory of history; but I believe it is opposed to such a theory, and I will very briefly explain how.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be distinctly out of Order in entering into that question on the Motion to report Progress. He must confine himself to the reasons for reporting Progress.
  DR. CLARK: I was going to give my reasons for wishing to report Progress. I wish to prevent the time of the House being wasted, and I was anxious to show that by the remedies you propose you will increase, instead of diminish, the disease. If it is not proper for me to go into that question I must content myself by moving to report Progress, on the ground that it is idle to debate further the measure in its present form.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) that it is really a waste of time to proceed further with this Bill. So far as I can make out, of the 40,000 holdings in the district contemplated by the Bill, not more than 2,000 or 3,000 at the most would be dealt with by it. Now, 2,000 or 3,000 crofters are such a very small proportion of the people who have been causing disturbances in the Highlands, that it is impossible to hope that the passing of this Bill will remedy the grievances or pacify the country. At the same time you have under the Bill very expensive machinery. We have some idea of what the working of the Irish Land Act has cost. We are going to have in Scotland, for the sake of 2,000 or 3,000 people, very expensive machinery; we are going to be landed in a very considerable annual expenditure, an expenditure which I believe will be very nearly as much as the whole of the rents of the crofts dealt with. I really think it would be much cheaper for Parliament to make a present of the rents to the landlords than to go on with this Bill. Clause after clause we have endeavoured to have the Bill extended, and to make it of some use. We are beginning to recognize more and more fully how narrow the limits of the Bill are; and I have certainly come to the conclusion that the Bill is not worth the time the House of Commons has spent upon it. I said the same thing in respect of the Agricultural Holdings Act for Scotland, and I repeat it in respect of this Bill. This Bill is not at all adequate to the occasion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I think my hon. Friends are entirely wrong in the course they have now taken. I have said already, and I say now, I do not think the Bill will be very effective; but, at the same time, I am bound to recognize the fact that it does contain some most beneficial principles. The Bill is a very large step in the right direction, and I must express my astonishment that this attempt to defeat it should have come from the Representative of Caithness, one of the
  74
  two counties in which I believe the Bill will be of some effect. The time we have spent on the Bill has not been altogether wasted; and, therefore, I hope the proposal of my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) will not be accepted.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I venture to appeal to the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark) to withdraw his Motion to report Progress. It is very little use having Parliamentary discussions at all if, because we cannot succeed in realizing all we want, we destroy even the very little good that a measure may effect. I have voted with the Crofter Members against the Government in every division; but I shall support the Government on this question if it is unfortunately pressed to a division; and I am certain that will be the course adopted by every English Radical Member who sits near me.
  MR. MASON: I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) will withdraw his Motion. I am not at all satisfied with the Bill; but I would recommend the Crofter Members, whom I have supported all through these discussions, to accept the Bill as it stands, seeing that there is no hope of fighting the Government with their allies on the other side of the House. If the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion and allow the Government to take the Bill as it is, I am quite convinced that before two years are over it will be found necessary to amend it, and that, in fact, it will be amended in a liberal manner, and a manner suitable to the needs of the people of the Highlands. I hope my hon. Friend will not persevere with his Motion, and that we shall cease to take any further divisions against the details of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF STAFFORD: I hope the hon. Member will withdraw this Motion. Whatever may be the shortcomings of the Bill, I may remind him that the future prosperity of the fishing industry depends very largely upon its passage.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I have refrained from taking upon myself the responsibility of throttling the Bill. I am willing that any Bill which will benefit people, however few, shall be passed if it can be passed. I have had many communications from all parts of Scotland in regard to this Bill, but

  75
  not one in its favour. The Resolution which you, Mr. Chairman, would not allow me, a few minutes ago, to read—I believe I am now entitled to read it if I wished—was to the effect that a meeting of Lewis delegates expresses its contempt for the Government Bill. I have not gone so far as that. Whatever I may have felt, I have not expressed my contempt for the Bill. As I have said, I declined to take the responsibility of moving at any of the stages the rejection of the Bill, although the communications I have received against the Bill have been innumerable, whilst not one has been in its favour. One reason I had for delaying any action against the Bill was that I had a faint hope that some slight amendment might be introduced into the measure. But the Bill is like the law of the Medes and Persians—it is unalterable. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanarkshire (Mr. Mason) has spoken of the alliance between the Lord Advocate and the Front Opposition Bench. There is only one mistake in that statement. My hon. Friend should not have called it the Front Opposition Bench, but the Front Co-operation Bench, because every Amendment calculated to extend the scope of the Bill has been mainly defeated by the votes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and every Amendment intended to restrict the operation of the Bill has come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. There are, however, several reasons why the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) should not press this Motion. One is that he cannot carry it—he will be defeated. I would advise him to withdraw the Motion, let the Bill go through Committee, and let the responsibility for this miserable, diluted, and rubbishy measure rest with the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whether the line pursued in the Bill is proper or not, we are certainly not pursuing the proper course at the present moment. It may be right to amend the Bill, or to throw it out; but it cannot by any possibility be right to waste time in discussing futile Motions for Adjournment. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway think that it is a Bill which ought to be thrown out, I would recommend them to move an Amendment on Report and throw it out if they can. But, in the meanwhile, we
  76
  ought to be allowed to get through the remaining Amendments on the Paper, and then see whether the Bill still deserves all the censure which has been heaped upon it.
  MR. BEITH: I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
  DR. R. MACDONALD: I, too, hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion. I do not suppose anybody in the House can think less of the Bill than I do. I can freely say, with my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane), that I have not received a single communication from Scotland in praise of this Bill. I have, however, received hundreds of Resolutions informing me that I shall never be elected for Ross-shire again, because I do not go in for rejecting the Bill. That is the case with all of us. All the Crofter Members are endangering their seats by going in for this Bill. Notwithstanding this fact, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion, and, as the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) has said, let the Government take the whole responsibility of the measure. I am perfectly certain that, within a twelvemonth, the Government will have to spend more on an expedition to the Highlands than would be required to put half the crofters on their legs.
  DR. CLARK: I shall not withdraw my Motion; but allow it to be negatived, as a great many Amendments have been treated. I made the Motion because the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) challenged us to take that course. We will divide the Committee upon two important Amendments which still stand upon the Paper, and then, either on the Report stage or the third reading, wash our hands of the measure by doing all we can to throw it out. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I should like to say I do not believe that 5 per cent of my constituents will be affected by the Bill. As Caithness contains most of the men who were reported upon by the Royal Commission, and as very few of them will reap any benefit through this Bill, I am anxious to do all I can to prevent the time of the House of Commons being wasted in passing the measure. There are two important points yet to be de-

  77
  cided; but of course, we shall be defeated by the co-operation of the Whigs and Tories. We will wait and take a decisive action, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has suggested, upon the third reading.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I may, perhaps, be allowed to put myself right with the Committee. If I had imagined that my suggestion would have been an incentive to report Progress I certainly would not have made it. What I said was that it was wearisome to hear hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway saying the Bill was worthless. If they really thought so, they could, at the proper time, vote against its passage. I had no Motion to report Progress in my mind; and I do not think it occurred to the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark) to make such a Motion until he was passing through the Lobby.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I beg to move the second Amendment which stands in my name—namely, to add to the clause the following sub-section:—
  "But Part IV. of this Act shall apply to all crofters and cottars in the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, Nairn, Elgin, Banff, Aberdeen, and Kincardine."
  The Lord Advocate must feel he has created a very unfavourable impression by the stubborn way in which he has resisted all Amendments. I wish to offer what I think is a reasonable compromise in this matter. The object of my proposal is that one of the operative parts of this Bill shall be extended to the Highland counties—that Part IV. of the Bill—that is the part which refers to compensation for improvements—shall be extended to the whole of the Highland counties. Compensation for improvements is admitted to be just according to the strictest principles of political economy; and I must remind the Committee that if you reject this Amendment there will only be one corner of Scotland—the North-East corner—in which there will be any compensation for improvements. We know that as long ago as 1870 compensation for improvements was given in Ireland. We also know that in England we have, through the Agricultural
  78
  Holdings Act, compensation for improvements, and that in certain counties there is a tenant right, which meets the necessities of the case. In the South of Scotland, I admit, the case is different. Almost all the holdings there depend upon contract; and we have an Agricultural Holdings Act. In the Western Highlands we propose, by this Bill, to protect the tenants in the right to compensation for improvements; but we exclude, as the Bill now stands, that right to compensation from certain of the Highland counties—namely, the Highland counties which are mentioned in my Amendment. I propose to extend the right of compensation not only to existing crofters in the counties I specify, but to all future tenants. I do sincerely hope it may be possible for the Lord Advocate to accept this moderate compromise.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the following sub-section:—"But Part IV. of this Act shall apply to all crofters and cottars in the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, Nairn, Elgin, Banff, Aberdeen, and Kincardine."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I do not know how far it is competent for my hon. Friend to move this Amendment after it has been declared, by decisions and votes of the House, that the Bill is not to apply to these additional counties. I may say, however, upon the merits of the proposal, I feel very much with my hon. Friend that the Compensation Clauses, which are a good deal simpler than those in the Act of 1883, might very well be extended not only to these counties, but to Scotland generally; but I am afraid that is a matter rather beyond the scope of this Bill. The Committee now knows the scope of the Bill; and I put it to my hon. Friend whether it would not be better to look forward to the hope of being able to amend the defects in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 by making a more simple and liberal provision for compensation applicable to Scotland generally?
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON: I support this Amendment very cordially, because I should like to get the benefit of some little portion of

  79
  this Bill for my constituents in the North of Scotland. It is quite evident that the cottars will be placed, as it were, between two stools. I think it is a great pity the Government did not give relief at once in the shape of free sale. They will be put off with the usual anæsthetic—they will be told they must bear the ills they have until the leaven, in the shape of a Local Government Bill comes, in which all evils have to be remedied.
  DR. CAMERON: I do not think there is any force in the objection the Lord Advocate has raised that this Amendment has practically been negatived already; it was quite a different Amendment that was negatived. That Amendment was to give all the benefits of the Bill to the whole of the Highland counties; but this Amendment is simply to extend the Compensation Clauses to the Highland counties generally. If the Lord Advocate really sympathizes with the Amendment, the way to give practical effect to his sympathy is to accept it. It is idle to talk about waiting until we can amend the Agricultural Holdings Act. We have got a lot of other Business before us. If what my hon. Friend proposes is worth doing, let us do it at once.
  MR. CHAPLIN: While I sympathize with the principle of tenants, from whatever part of the country they may come, receiving compensation for unexhausted improvements, I see the greatest possible difficulty in accepting this Amendment and adding it to the Bill. If you accept this suggestion, you must import into the Bill a definition of crofter throughout the whole of Scotland; and if you once proceed to define what is a crofter in every county of Scotland, I cannot conceive how, with anything like consistency or reason, it would be possible to resist the application of the Bill to the whole of the country. That would, no doubt, be an inclusion which would give great satisfaction to many hon. Members who have supported this Amendment; but it would be contrary to the whole course of our proceedings in regard to this measure. I do not think the Committee, generally speaking, at all agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson), when he said we are all of opinion that free sale ought to have been imported into the Bill as a much
  80
  more convenient way of deciding compensation for improvements. That is an opinion held by a small portion of the Committee; and it is certainly no argument whatever in support of this Amendment. For the reasons which I have given I sincerely hope the Lord Advocate will adhere to the course the Government have announced, because if we are to make this extension I do not see where we are to stop.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The Preamble of the Bill is that—
  "Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the tenure of land by crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
  If the counties named in the Amendment are counties in which crofters hold land, why should they be excluded from the benefits of the Bill? Can there be any objection in equity to extending the operation of the Bill to the counties proposed? I hope the Lord Advocate will make some little concession on this one point at least.
  DR. CLARK: There is this difference between the tenants in these counties and those in the Southern counties—that while in the latter the landlords make the improvements, and the tenant pays for them in his rent, in the former the improvements represent the capital and labour of the tenants, for which they are entitled to compensation when they are turned out. All we ask is that, when these people are turned out, they shall receive some compensation for the capital they have invested and the labour they have given in the improvement of the land. I cordially support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell). You are not asked that the people of these counties shall have fair rents fixed; you are not asked that they shall have their holdings enlarged—you are simply asked that when the people are turned out they shall be compensated for improvements.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I do hope that since the Lord Advocate has expressed himself favourable to the principle of this Amendment he will consider it by Report. When he looks into the facts of the case he will see he may well give effect to the Amendment without any danger of a wide extent. It is admitted that this Amendment is entirely different to that which has been negatived, inasmuch, as it only proposes to extend

  81
  the Compensation Clauses to the Highland counties generally. I fear it would be very difficult to secure an extension of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, as the Lord Advocate suggested. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) has said, that the conditions in the Northern counties are totally different to those in the Southern counties. The farmers do not build their own houses. In the North of Scotland there is a peculiar condition of things. It has been said that the Royal Commission did not visit Aberdeenshire. Well, I am not an Aberdeenshire man, but I constituted myself a volunteer Commissioner, and made inquiries in that district, and I was surprised to find the enormous extent to which the farmers have built houses without any security whatever as to compensation for their outlay. This is the case with regard to Aberdeenshire estates, and it prevails to an enormous extent; therefore, I say it is a peculiar state of things, and one which should be adequately met by a provision in Part IV. of this Bill. It is a state of things we are not likely to find a remedy for in the Agricultural Holdings Act, which necessarily applies to much larger areas; consequently I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will assent to this proposition. It is not to extend the Agricultural Holdings Act unreasonably to parts of the country where contracts are the rule, but to apply it to parts where contracts are not the rule.
  MR. CONYBEARE: As the only English Radical in the House at this moment, I should like to express what is the feeling of English Radicals on this point. I earnestly support the appeal the hon. Member has just made to the Lord Advocate. It seems to me that the principle of granting this has been sanctioned in one case, and I, therefore, cannot see why it should not be sanctioned in another. As to the argument that the acceptance of the Amendments would so extend the scope of the Bill that no one would know where it would stop, I should like to know what Amendments have been accepted in favour of the crofters? One Amendment, providing that all the Commissioners shall understand Gaelic, has been adopted; but that, I understand, is the only one that has been
  82
  adopted in the course of these discussions. I do not think I ever recollect a measure in which the Government have been so obstinate in the way of refusing Amendments as on this Bill, and I hope they will change that policy on the present occasion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 103: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 81.)
  MR. CHANCE: I am sorry the Lord Advocate felt compelled to reject the last Amendment, though I agree that it would have been almost impossible to apply the words of that Amendment to this Act. The Lord Advocate made some observations as to the Irish Land Act of 1881, in which I think he was mistaken—no doubt excusably—owing to the extreme complexity of the matter. I think he will find this proposal drafted on almost similar lines. Under the Act of 1881 the tenants could apply to have a revaluation of rent every 15 years, and they get compensation for improvements. The only additional provision I can see is this—that of increasing holdings. But to come to the point of my Amendment. In the Act of 1881 certain provisions were put as to future tenants; and I do not see why they should not, on the ground of equal justice, be introduced into this Act also. The provisions as to future tenants were divided into three. A future tenant went into a holding at a certain rent, and, of course, he had to pay that rent; but if, afterwards, the landlord chose to attempt to raise the rent on him, three courses were open to him. He could either submit to that rent, and then he would have all the rights as to fixity of tenure that a present tenant had under the Act; but that course was seldom adopted. The second course was for him to sell his tenancy, subject to the increased rent, and then demand from the landlord compensation for the diminution in value caused by the increase of rent; a course which would be clearly inapplicable to this Bill, since we have not adopted the principle of free sale. The third course, and that to which I wish especially to call the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention, was this—that if the landlord demanded an increase of rent the tenant was entitled to

  83
  say—"I will not pay it;" to leave the holding, and then recover from the landlord compensation for disturbance as it is called under the 4th section of the Act. The compensation varies according to the amount paid. Under the 9th section of the Irish Land Act, where the amount of rent is £30—and the tenancies within this Bill are all under £30 rent—in these cases, the tenants going out rather than pay an increase of rent, will be entitled to compensation for disturbance not exceeding seven years' rent of their holdings. I do not see that there ought to be great difficulty in applying that principle to the present Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order! If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright he is leading up to a proposal to introduce something into the Act for the benefit of future tenants. [Mr. CHANCE: Yes.] I am of opinion that in the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire the Committee refused to bring future tenants within the Act; therefore it would be inconsistent with the resolution already arrived at to discuss the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. CHANCE: I appreciate your ruling, Sir. I should not, of course, propose to apply this to future tenants. The distinction is that in the previous Amendment it was proposed to give the main benefits of the Act to future tenants; but I should not dream of doing that at all. I merely propose to give them a certain sort of compensation for disturbance. I do not know whether I should be in Order in doing that; but I would ask you for your ruling in the matter.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is precluded by the previous decision from applying the Act to future tenants at all.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHANCE: Before this clause is agreed to, I ask the Lord Advocate to consider before the Report stage the advisability of introducing this Amendment. It has been working fairly satisfactorily in Ireland, although to a small extent; but no objection can be found to it. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some assurance that he will do this.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I shall be quite willing to look into the subject; but I cannot say positively anything with regard to the admission of the clause. I was not in the House when the Irish Land Act was passing through.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look into the clause of the Irish Land Act.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I shall look through the provisions which the hon. Gentleman refers to; but I cannot be expected to give a pledge without much more careful consideration of the matter.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think we have a right to expect that it should be so, unless it is a principle that the greater the disturbance made the greater the concession which the Government will make to the demand. The Irish tenants made more disturbance than the crofters. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have no difficulty in giving us an assurance that he will consider the matter.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I will consider the matter, and look very carefully into the Irish Act.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Procedure in fixing fair rent).
  On Motion of The Lord ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—Page 8, line 17, leave out from "the remuneration" to "determine," in line 20, inclusive.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Procedure in enlarging holdings).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, after line 32, insert "in assigning land for the enlargement of crofters' holdings, it shall be competent for the Commissioners, if they think fit, to make such order or orders with respect to the fencing of the said land as they shall consider necessary or expedient.
  "It shall also be competent to the Commissioners to decide summarily any questions relating to the boundaries or marches between crofts, or between crofts and adjoining lands.
  "In the event of any dispute arising as to whether a person is a "crofter" within the meaning of this Act, it shall be competent for the Commissioners to determine such question summarily."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have a question to ask with

  85
  regard to the powers of the Commissioners with respect to fencing the land assigned for the enlargement of crofters' holdings. I presume that the first part of the Amendment refers to grazing as well as arable land. If I am correct it appears to me that this is a very large power to give to the Commissioners, because the cost of fencing additional grazing land would probably be much greater than the cost of fencing arable land. I have not the figures with me, but I know that the cost of such fencing is very heavy indeed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The clause is proposed as much in the interest of the landlord as of the crofter, and would only apply in cases where it might be desirable that the land should be inclosed.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I am informed that disputes sometimes arise between crofters and landlords with regard to the boundaries of grazing land, which I think would be obviated by introducing, in line 7, the words "and grazing."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I agree with the principle of the hon. Gentleman's proposal; but I would suggest the words should be "including grazing."
  Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment after "crofts," in line 7, to add "including grazing."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: Then I suggest that we should add at the end "and grazing."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think we should say "including grazing and arable land." I think that decidedly the best alteration.
  Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, in line 7, after "including grazing, to add "and arable land."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Duration of the Act).
  DR. CLARK: I rise to ask the Lord Advocate to agree to strike out the word "five," in line 35, and insert "nineteen." If you only allow the Land Commissioners to make engage-
  86
  ments for five years, they will probably be unable to make the necessary enlargements, because there will be a limited number of large farms let on 19 years' leases, and until they expire the enlargements could take place. I cannot see why the period of five years should be fixed upon; but my proposal is to take 19 years, which is the term of the leases.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 35, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "nineteen."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I think it would be very injurious to limit the period during which the powers of the Land Commission were to be exercised. My idea is that the clause expresses what is a fair period.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think it quite unnecessary to make this alteration, the result of which would be that we should be burdened with the expenses of the machinery for another term of years.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Use of sheriff court houses).
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—Page 9, line 10, after "use," insert "free of charge;" page 9, line 15, after "Court," add—
  "with right to exact the same fees as are exigible by them for service at the sittings of the Sheriff Court."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Record of proceedings; transmission of applications by sheriff clerk; sheriff clerk's remuneration).
  MR. MACFARLANE: (Argyll): The object of the Amendment in my name is to bring a record of the transactions of the Land Commission within more easy reach of the tenant. In my county a tenant might have to travel 100 miles to ascertain the order of the Court; and therefore I propose that the record should be kept in the local Court.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 19, after the word "clerk," to insert the words, "or his depute for the said district."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It would be very inconvenient in the larger counties if the words suggested by him were not inserted.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I entirely agree that it is desirable that this book should be kept in a local office. I do not, however, think it necessary to make the second similar Amendment which the hon. Member proposes to the subsequent part of the clause.
  MR. MACFARLANE: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree to make these records as accessible as possible I do not wish to press the Amendment.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The subject shall receive consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clagse 25 (Execution of orders made by Commission) agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Forms of Procedure).
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 9, line 38, at end, add—
  "It stall be in the power of the Land Commission to make rules with reference to proceedings before the Commission, and also, with the approval of the Treasury, to fix a scale of costs and fees to be charged in carrying the Act into execution, and the taxation of such costs and fees, and the persons by whom, and the manner in which, such costs and fees are to be paid."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Sole arbiter may be chosen) agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Saving of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883).
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, to leave out lines 9 and 10.—(Mr. M'Culloch.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): The hon. Grentleman will see that we make a more liberal provision by giving the
  88
  landlord and tenant the option of settlement under either Act.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): In the case of manures the crofter is entitled to compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Is he entitled under this Act also?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The hon. Member will see that the case is covered by the clause; the words are—
  "Such valuation shall be made, unless the landlord and the crofter otherwise agree, by the Land Commission, according to the procedure prescribed by this Act, but otherwise subject to the provisions of the said Act."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Before the clause is put, I wish to understand the exact application of the last words of the clause—
  "But otherwise subject to the provisions of the said Act."
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: What we provide for specially in this Act are permanent improvements; but we do not desire to cut off the claim of the crofter, if he has been a manuring tenant, which he would have under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Would it not be better to have an additional Schedule to the Bill? In the first part of the Act the crofter is to be compensated for all improvements. I do not see how the two Acts can work together, and therefore I propose to leave out the words—
  "But otherwise subject to the provisions of the said Act,"
  because I do not see any necessity for them. I advocate this Amendment because the wording of the Agricultural Holdings Act is too complicated to be understood by the bulk of the people concerned.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, to leave out the words, "but otherwise subject to the provisions of the said Act."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): The question is how the compensation is to be claimed? I do not think the Amendment proposed is desirable; however, I will look into the matter before Report.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Definitions).
  DR. CLARK: The Amendment I am about to move is one of great importance, and I hope the Lord Advocate will take it into his consideration now, because upon its adoption or rejection the fate of the great bulk of the crofters depends, and especially of the best class of crofters. The question has already been raised on the Amendment of the noble Marquess the Member for Sutherlandshire (the Marquess of Stafford); but it only then affected the question of rent, whereas my Amendment affects the crofter as far as getting compensation for improvements and extension of his holding is concerned. I think we ought to be as accurate as possible in defining the term "crofter." During the last 10 or 12 years it has been the custom, and especially since the passing of the Irish Land Act, to force leases upon crofters. Now, the crofters have always fought against leases, because they are under the impression that by accepting a lease they are giving up their right to compensation. A great many tenants have lately been offered the alternative of accepting these leases or going, and they have accepted the leases. By inserting these words you will take in a great number of crofters who have been obliged to accept leases in this way, and who will be very much benefited. I trust, moreover, that the Lord Advocate will show that he is conceding something to the crofters who have a hereditary right. The hereditary argument strongly applies here, and if you apply it at all in the Bill you ought to apply it here.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 16, after the word "holding," to insert the words "by lease for a term of years or."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I was under the impression that the whole question of applying this Act to leaseholders had been very fully discussed, and negatived. I must say that we are now delaying the Committee on an argument which was stated at the out-
  90
  set to be outside the scope of this Bill—namely, that it should apply to leaseholders. The Bill is intended to apply to tenants under the customary tenure; and if a person has taken himself out of that category, that is a very different position to the position of the tenant we are dealing with; and it would not be right that the Bill should step in and alter the existing arrangement. I think there may be some hard cases arise; but I do not think the hon. Member was happy in instancing improving leases, because we all know that in those cases the tenant gets the holding at a very low figure, which he pays partly by rent and partly by improvements.
  MR. MACFARLANE: It will be remembered that in the Irish Land Act it was provided that if a tenant could show that a lease had been forced upon him it should be set aside. That provision has been applied, and applied successfully; and, therefore, I would suggest that we should leave out the words "from year to year." Persons of this class only accept leases of this kind with the greatest reluctance, and therefore they ought not to be excluded from the benefit of this Act. What I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this—that the Government shall treat these people somewhat on the same basis as the Irish peasants were treated by the Irish Land Act; and if they can show that leases have been recently forced upon them they shall be able to obtain the benefits of this Act—such as they are.
  THE CHAIRMAN: A previous Amendment to Clause 6 on this point was negatived, and the Committee have, therefore, refused to go into the question of leases. This Amendment, therefore, will be out of Order.
  DR. CLARK: But that Amendment on Clause 6 did not apply to other clauses. I would ask you, Sir, can a division of this Committee upon a question on Clause 6 affect a question on Clause 8, and Clauses 11 and 12? We have altered the Bill as far as Section 3 is concerned; but Sections 4 and 5 have not been affected by that alteration. I should like to see the same principle applied to this case.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): Section 6, on which we took a division, only applies to the fixing of rent, while this Amendment applies

  91
  to the fixing of tenure; and I would ask you, therefore, Sir, if that is not different?
  THE CHAIRMAN: This Definition Clause which we are now on applies to the whole Bill; and therefore the Amendment, if passed, would be inconsistent with the Amendment we negatived on Clause 6. Under those circumstances, it is out of Order at this stage.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.): I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate can complain that I have troubled him much with Amendments. I will withdraw the first one which stands in my name; but I think my second one, in page 10, line 16, to leave out all after "holding," to "holding," in line 17, inclusive, is a very important one. I represent a very important group of boroughs, the inhabitants of which are greatly interested in this point, as many of them are engaged part of the year fishing, and I shall be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to accept my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 16, to leave out all after the word "holding," to "holding," in line 17, inclusive.—(Mr. Macdonald Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): Of course, the object of introducing these words was to cut out that kind of person who has some other business, and does not reside on his holding. I do not know whether the words as they now stand might not be pressed against a man who is away half the year fishing, and I shall not press them if any satisfactory words can be found.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I cannot see that that difficulty stands in the way of the acceptance of the words of the Bill as they stand. It appears to me that the case of such people as have been mentioned will be met by the other sections of the Bill; but I understand that the words of this clause are supposed to apply to a very different kind of persons—who are really
  92
  burgesses having a small holding outside the towns in which they live. That is that they have their holdings as a luxury. I am bound to say that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words are quite right; and I do not see how the hon. Member can imagine that his constituents will be damaged by them, unless they are tradesmen first of all and small farmers afterwards.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may suggest that the difficulty may be so far solved by leaving out the word "habitually."
  MR. MACFARLANE: I was just going to suggest to leave out the word "habitually," and insert the word "generally."
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: No; I think it is better to leave out the word "habitually" altogether.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes; leave out the word "habitually" altogether.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: There is a large class who will be entirely excluded from the benefits of this Bill if my Amendment is not accepted.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I put down an Amendment to insert "or in the vicinity of."
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I should be sorry to cut out anybody; but the words are meant to meet the case which exists in some parts of burgesses who have farms outside.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I am quite sure that a very large class of persons is by no means covered by these words. I have a large number of letters from people, including such persons as the doctor and the minister, complaining that this clause will exclude their holdings from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am afraid that this is neither a Clerical nor a Medical Bill; and, therefore, I cannot see why gentlemen of those Professions should be included.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I am not advocating the case of these gentlemen; but I want to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will modify the clause so as to include the spirit and not the letter of the Bill?
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if, instead of the word "resides," he

  93
  inserted "cultivates," his holding, he would obtain his object.
  DR. R. MACDONALD: I think that the best Amendment we can accept is that of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), which comes next.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), which comes as an Amendment to mine. A number of the people whom I have in my eye are evicted crofters in the old sense of the term, and I think that they are entitled to get all the benefits of any measure of this kind.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: We shall be much better without the word "generally." I think the word "resides" absolutely will be much better than any other. The hon. Member wants to go further than is proposed in any of the suggestions yet made, for he wants to include in the Bill people who live on their feus. I beg to say that we should be going far beyond the instruction given to this Committee by the House if we were to go into the grievances of people who live on their small feus, but who are also small farmers outside. I think the whole case will be met if we merely strike out the word "habitually."
  MR. MACFARLANE: I want to put a question to the Lord Advocate. Suppose a crofter has two holdings and he lives on one of them, will he lose the benefits of this Act in regard to the other?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am afraid that he would only get the benefits of the Act for the one on which he resided last.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Then he would be deprived of the benefits of the Act in regard to his second holding?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Well, that is not the question.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Suppose a man has a holding half of which is situated on one property and half on another. Suppose he has a small patch of arable land from one landlord and a house and some pasture from another, will he be excluded?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I entirely agree that that is a case that ought to be met; and I shall be willing to accept an Amendment dealing with the matter.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: There are a great many crofters in the Highlands who have houses inside some of the little hamlets, and I say that they are quite entitled to the benefits of this Act.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): Now, I beg to move to omit the word "habitually."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I move, in page 10, line 17, after "on," insert "or in the vicinity of." The object of the Amendment is this. Suppose a man has a holding consisting of two parts—one in the hamlet and the other outside. That is a case which ought to be considered, and it will not involve a great matter of disadvantage to the landowners.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 17, after the word "on," to insert "or in the vicinity of."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): May I point out to the Committee that these words would take no cognizance of the kind of land which was in question? A man worth £5,000 a-year might come in as a crofter, under these words, and take advantage of the benefits of this Act.
  MR. GREGORY: It appears to me that we have got into a difficulty by omitting the word "habitually." We do not want to include within the Act a man who has other means of living; and therefore I would suggest that we should include the words "who is dependent on his holding."
  MR. HUNTER: The vital objection to that is that most crofters in the Highlands are fishermen, and they would be excluded altogether by such words.
  DR. CLARK: How would the word "occupies" do?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am afraid that residence is the only qualification that we can accept.
  MR. CHANCE: How would it do to say "lives in a crofting parish?"
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think we must have the residential qualification?
  MR. M'CULLOCH: I think that the question of occupation should be quite sufficient. I have known this residential qualification used for the oppression of tenants, and I can quote cases in which people who have been unable to live on their holdings have been deprived of benefits to which they were entitled.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): What we want to know is whether such cases as have been mentioned ought not to be included in the Bill; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman says they ought, then we are willing to wait for him to introduce words to deal with the matter.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I thought I had made myself perfectly clear on this point. If a person has a piece of land quite separate from his house, and he is a prosperous person apart from this land, he is not the kind of person who should come under the provisions of this Bill; but if it is a genuine case it ought to be dealt with.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: But how does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deal with it?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I propose to deal with it by inserting words to show that he should have land which is part of the same possession.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I think that we should have some definition from the right hon. and learned Gentleman now. He appears to be afraid that a number of people are going to get the benefits of this Act who are not entitled to them; but I do not think the benefits will be worth so much after all.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It really seems to me that hon. Members opposite are pressing the right hon. and learned Gentleman too much. He has expressed his sympathy with the point they have advanced, and he has promised to deal with the question on Report. I hope, therefore, we may be allowed now to come to a decision. If the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) is not satisfied with the
  96
  undertaking of the right hon. and learned Gentleman let him press his Amendment, and let us take a division upon it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 133: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 82.)
  MR. CHANCE: I beg to move after the word "holding" in the same line to insert these words—
  "Or who resides in a crofting parish and is mainly dependent on agriculture or fishing for his livelihood."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): That would involve a very large and complicated addition to the clause, and therefore I cannot accept it. I think the hon. Member would do better to bring up the words on Report.
  MR. BIGGAR: Many of the people living in these crofting parishes are fishermen in addition to possessing a holding, and I think they should be included in the Bill. I think the Committee should give effect, therefore, to the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that the contention of the hon. Member is unreasonable; but it is a difficult thing to introduce into the Bill matter of such moment on occasions like this and on the spur of the moment. I cannot see, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate is unreasonable in asking that the question shall be left over until Report.
  MR. CHANCE: I think that this is a matter which can be better dealt with at this stage than on Report. It involves a simple matter of fact, and ought to be settled at once.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The hon. Member who has brought in this Amendment does not appear to be aware of its effect. He is only including one industry which a crofter may be open to engage himself in during a portion of his time; but I think there are many others besides fishing which ought not to be excluded from the benefits of this Act. The hon.

  97
  Member has contributed some exceedingly valuable suggestions during the sittings of the Committee on this Bill; but if he will allow me to say so, I think he has gone a little beyond his depth on this occasion. No doubt the Amendment is intended to get rid of a difficulty, but the acceptance of it would bring about a much greater one. I hope the hon. Member will not press the matter.
  MR. CHANCE: The Amendment points out that a man must be mainly dependent upon his croft or fishing, and I am quite sure that hon. Members will agree that unless he is so "mainly dependent" he ought not to have the benefits of this Act.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: If they are not "mainly dependent on agriculture" they ought not to be included in the Bill, and it is for that reason that this Amendment should not be pressed. I earnestly trust it will not be insisted upon.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) that the Amendment would introduce fresh difficulties into the Bill, and that it is better that it should not be pressed.
  MR. CHANCE: I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will introduce words on Report to meet the case which has been brought forward.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I will endeavour to introduce words on Report which will meet the views of the Committee.
  MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY: I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this point. Take the case of a crofter who is fairly prosperous, and is anxious to enlarge his holding, and succeeds in getting an additional piece of land from another landlord, but continues to reside on his old croft. How will he be included in the Bill? How can you deal with a case of that sort, unless you insert some such Amendment as this?
  MR. CHANCE: Surely a man should not be excluded from the benefits of the Act because, with a view of adding to his income, he lives in a miserable little crofting village, and does some blacksmith's work? That would really be
  98
  discouraging industry amongst these poor people.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I propose to meet cases of that kind.
  MR. CHANCE: Then, under those circumstances, I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg, Sir, to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Baird), which is as follows:—In page 10, line 18, to leave out "thirty," and insert "fifteen." It is not desirable to create a number of small farms upon which, in a precarious climate, people can scarcely exist. I remember, for instance, parts of my own county upon which the population barely exists. This state of existence is unsuited to modern times. Families either consolidate their holdings, or give them up and retire; but for Parliament deliberately to create a new system of small farms in these days would be an anachronism and retrograde movement, not in accord with the ordinary progress of the age.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 18, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "fifteen."—(Sir James Fergusson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I cannot accept this Amendment at all. The Royal Commissioners, in their Report, say—
  "For the purposes of this inquiry and Report, we limit the class of crofters to tenants paying not more than £30 annual rent;"
  and, no doubt, the great majority of the crofter holdings are under £30. We took the largest figure named by the Commissioners; and I would submit, though they say there should not be additional land given, that we may very well give the benefits of the Act to all who come under the definition "tenants paying not more than £30 annual rent."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I beg to move, in page 10, line 19, after "parish," to insert "or a

  99
  tenant of a like holding whose lease has expired." The object of the Amendment is to put the Scotch crofter inexactly the same position as the Irish crofter who holds under the Act of 1881. I hold in my hand the Irish Land Act of 1881, and I find that, according to that, a lessee cannot have a fair rent, but that at the expiration of his lease he has the privilege of an ordinary tenant, and the benefits of the Act. I do hope that the Lord Advocate will put the Scotch crofter in the same position as the Irish crofter at the expiration of a lease that has come down for hundreds and thousands of years. I hope that at the end of his lease he will not be allowed to find himself in a worse position than an ordinary tenant.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 19, after the word "parish," to insert the words "or a tenant of a like holding whose lease has expired."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I should think that in cases where leases have been granted for "hundreds and thousands of years" these words would be hardly necessary. A person whose lease has expired is a tenant from year to year.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: If the Lord Advocate is quite clear that that is the true interpretation of the law, I am perfectly satisfied, and will withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. MACFARLANE: The hon. Member has, I think, misunderstood the Lord Advocate. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the tenant who at the time of the passing of this Act is under a lease will, at the expiration of that lease, become what the Irish Land Act calls a present tenant?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: He becomes a tenant from year to year.
  MR. MACFARLANE: No; a present tenant. If he means that I shall be satisfied.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I do not understand that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) is meant to apply to the case of any person who at any future time has a lease running
  100
  out. I understand that when an inquiry arises and the point comes in question, and a tenant has no lease, it will be held that he is holding from year to year.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: What is to happen to the tenant whose lease expires one year after the Act comes into operation?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Why, he is then no longer a leaseholder, but a yearly tenant. We must not talk about different things. If, when the question arises, the lease is still current, then it is a compact, with all the incidence of a compact, and with the right to bring it to an end; but if that contract has expired, and the tenant has become an ordinary tenant from year to year, he will, of course, be treated as such.
  DR. CLARK: I have this morning received several letters with regard to this point. The people who write to me are a number of tenants whose leases are expiring, and one of them is the Secretary to the Land Law Reform Association of his parish. I have a letter from this gentleman, saying that his lease will expire next year, and that unless he agrees to take a new lease he will have to go. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will put an end to that state of things. [Mr. J. B. BALFOUR: Not at all.] We must thoroughly understand this point. The landlord will give a leaseholder notice to quit at the expiration of his lease, that leaseholder will leave, his improvements will be confiscated, and he will be debarred from the privileges of this Bill.
  MR. CHANCE: I would point out to the Committee that, under the 39th section we are discussing, the definition of a crofter is "a tenant of a holding from year to year." Then, if we turn to the 16th section, which defines the scope of the Bill, we find—
  "This Act shall apply to every crofter who is the tenant of a holding at the passing of this Act, and to his heirs, in the same manner as if the tenancy were a lease."
  Supposing a man is a tenant under a lease, he clearly is not "now" a tenant from year to year, according to the terms of this Bill, and in that way this measure differs in its application from the Irish Land Act of 1881. It was provided in the Irish Act that a tenant under a lease should, at the expiration of his

  101
  lease, be deemed a present tenant. In England and Ireland, it is dear that on the expiration of a lease the tenant becomes the permissive occupant, and not a tenant from year to year, although, of course, if the landlord does anything in the way of recognizing him as such, he may become a tenant from year to year. A landlord in Ireland may let such a man remain on his holding for a time, and then summarily eject him, if he can show that he has done nothing to recognize him as a tenant from year to year.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: With us, unless notice were given the requisite period before the new year has commenced, the tenant would have become a tenant from year to year.
  MR. CHANCE: The Bill, under the combined operation of the 16th and 39th sections, only extends to tenants now occupying their holdings as tenants from year to year. A person who is now a leaseholder will not come within the operation of the Act, and no future proceeding will ever bring him under the Act.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: It has been twice decided by the Committee that present leaseholders shall not come within the Act.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: There is some ambiguity about the Amendment, and I would ask leave to withdraw it, so that I may move it again in this shape—
  "Or a tenant of a like holding, under an existing lease, on the expiration of his lease."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think that that Amendment would be out of Order. We have already decided against the inclusion of leaseholders.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I submit that the Committee has only decided as to the position of a leaseholder, on the expiration of his lease, as regards certain privileges.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be impossible to insert a provision to this effect.
  MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY: Before the hon. Member withdraws his Amendment, let me point out the inconvenience which the Bill would cause without it. There are tenants holding leases, upon whom, before the expiration of those leases, notice to quit would be served. In all those cases, as I understand it, by the law of Scotland, the status of the tenant is exactly the
  102
  same as that of tenants in England, on the expiration of their leases. He is utterly unprotected against eviction. How are you going to deal with the class who have not acquired the status of tenants from year to year, and who are wholly at the mercy of the landlords? I think the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House (Sir George Campbell) should press this Amendment.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: May I point out that the proposal is to deal with a case that was not contemplated in this clause. The intention of the Bill is to deal with the cases of crofters who sit in their holdings without any legal or ordinary contract. It is not proposed to deal with such persons as, by reason of education and other circumstances, are able to look after their own interests, and have entered into certain contracts with their landlords. No doubt, if a lease expires and the person who holds it is allowed to remain on in occupation of the holding, he then becomes, by law, a leaseholder from year to year. There can be no question about that, and such a person having no contract will get the benefit of this Act. To say that the leaseholder who holds by written contract, and is therefore presumed to be able to take care of himself, should be placed in the position of a crofter in ordinary circumstances, is going altogether beyond the scope of this Bill. A leaseholder of that kind is not intended to be dealt with in this Bill at all.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. KIMBER: I should like to take up the next Amendment, to a certain extent. The clause says—
  "'Crofting parish' means a parish in which there are at the commencement of this Act, or have teen within eighty years prior thereto, holdings consisting of arable land held with a right of pasturage in common with others, &c."
  Instead of the word "or," I would move that the word "and" be inserted. In this definition of the words "crofting parish," there is this defect—that provision is not made for dealing simply with parishes that have crofters in them

  103
  at the present time. A careful reading of the first lines of this sub-section will show that it means that a crofting parish implies a parish where there are at the commencement of this Act, or have been within 78 or 80 years, these holdings consisting of arable land held with a right of pasturage in common with others. So that if 79 years ago these conditions prevailed, though they do not prevail now, and have not for the last 60 or 70 years, still the parish would be a crofting parish within the meaning of this Act. ["No, no."] An hon. Member says "No, no;" but I venture respectfully to differ from him, and I submit to the Lord Advocate whether this clause does not mean that a crofting parish is not necessarily one in which there are crofters at the present time, but a parish in which there were crofters 70 years ago?
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 21, to leave out the word "or," and insert the word "and."—(Mr. Kimber.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): This word has been designedly introduced here, and I will state to the Committee why. A crofter, according to the provisions of this Act, need not necessarily be a person who has a share of a right of pasturage with others. If you get a parish in which there are present crofters, although there are no holdings consisting of arable land held with a right of pasturage in common with others, yet the crofter will come within the operation of this Act, and the parish will be a crofting parish. It will, therefore, be quite evident that these words are quite necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I beg to move, in line 21, to leave out "eighty," for the purpose of inserting "forty." It seems to me that 80 years is a very long time over which to extend the researches as to the customs of a parish. In most cases proof of there having been common pasturage at so remote a date as 70 or 80 years ago will be of the vaguest and most uncertain kind. If the clause is allowed to stand as at present framed, I very much fear that false hopes will
  104
  be held out to people, and that many disputes will be occasioned. Forty years is a term well understood in Scotland; it is, comparatively speaking, a short term, and there would not be much difficulty in ascertaining whether, during that period, the conditions mentioned in the section had existed.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 21, to leave out the word "eighty," and insert the word "forty."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'eighty' stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): It would be very inconvenient if this Amendment were accepted. This is not a question that has anything to do with prescription, and anyone who knows anything of the history of the Highland holdings must be aware that if you limited this period to 40 years you would not get at a large number of the worst cases. Eighty years is quite sufficient, we think, to cover all cases.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. M'CULLOCH: I beg to move to leave out the following words:—
  "Consisting of arable land held with a right of pasturage in common with others, and in which there still are tenants of holdings from year to year, who habitually reside on their holdings."
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 22, to leave out from the word "holdings," to the word "holdings," in line 25, inclusive.—(Mr. M'Culloch.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I do not think this would be workable, as it would destroy the specific difference between crofters and ordinary tenants.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—Page 10, line 27, after "a," insert "dwelling;" after "house," insert "situated in a crofting parish."
  THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. J. W. BARCLAY to move the next Amendment.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to explain his definition of the word "cottar." When he says, "who pays no rent to the landlord," what does he mean by "landlord?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have called on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire to move the next Amendment.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I beg to move to leave out, in line 28, the words "who pays no rent to the landlord." I wish to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity to explain the words in the sub-section, and to get a proper definition of the word "cottar."
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 28, to leave out the words "who pays no rent to the landlord."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR&c.): I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Amendment a few lines lower down to see the definition we propose to give to the word "cottar." We propose that in the first place the cottar should be—
  "The occupier of a house with or without land who pays no rent to the landlord;"
  and we propose to add—
  "as also the tenant from year to year of a dwelling-house situated in a crofting parish who habitually resides therein, and who pays to the landlord therefor an annual rent not exceeding six pounds in money, whether with or without garden ground, but without arable or pasture land."
  In this way we shall have a better definition of "cottar" than that in the Bill as it stands. I may explain that by a cottar is meant a person who is on the land, either with the landlord's tolerance or by agreement with the landlord. But it would not include, and it is not intended to include, a person who is upon the land by some arrangement with the principal tenant to which the landlord is not a party and which may be against his contract with his tenant. It is reasonable that in cases where a landlord allows a person to reside on his land, and perhaps build a house on it, without paying rent, that that person
  106
  should have the benefits of the Act; but, on the other hand, if the tenant makes a bargain with some person to which the landlord is no party, it would not be fair or right to make the landlord liable for compensation to such person. It is notorious that in the Western Highlands one of the greatest evils has been the process of sub-division and squatting on crofts. It would be unreasonable to give the benefits of the Act to a person who possibly has come upon the land with the knowledge not of the landlord, but of someone else, and possibly to the injury of the croft.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I do not think that description is correct. The right hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that the cottar who is on the land has gone there in defiance of the landlord—[Mr. J. B. BALFOUR: No; on the contrary.] I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to exclude the cottar from the benefits of the Act as to compensation, because he will be upon not the landlord's but the crofter's land. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question on this matter some time ago—on a previous evening. I will repeat my query; it was, Will the landlord, under this Act, be entitled to evict the cottar who has squatted on the crofter's holding, that crofter being in possession of the holding by a tenure called fixity of tenure? The crofter is the landlord for all time so long as he pays the rent; and what I want to understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is whether or not the cottar evicted in the way I have referred to will be entitled to compensation?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: A person under those circumstances would not be entitled to the benefits of the Act; and I should submit that he ought not to be, because he is not on the land with the permission—either tacit or stated—of the landlord. Would it be reasonable to make the landlord or anybody else liable for compensation to a person whom he has neither tolerated on his land nor made a bargain with?
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I do not think that such a class would come under the Bill. It is well known that the vast majority of cottars do not pay rent to the landlord, but to the tenant. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate mean by pretending to give

  107
  certain benefits to the cottars, and then hedging the gift about in such a way that no benefit at all is conferred? Surely he means something when he speaks about doing something for the cottar. How many cottars will come under this Bill? I do not believe more than 100.
  MR. CHANCE: I understand the Lord Advocate to say that the presence of a cottar on a crofter's holding would be a breach of this Act. May I ask, that if such a breach would cause a forfeiture of all the benefits of the Act to the crofter, whether it is intended to make this Act an engine for the purpose of getting rid of any crofters who have cottars on their holdings?
  DR. CLARK: When a cottar is removed from his dwelling according to the 9th clause, or when he is removed from any land or buildings occupied by him in connection therewith, he is to be entitled to compensation for permanent improvements; but now you say the cottar is to be a person who pays no rent to the landlord, or a tenant from year to year of a dwelling-house situated in a crofting parish who habitually resides therein, and who pays to the landlord therefor an annual rent not exceeding £6 in money. Now we have got the cottar who pays no rent to the landlord and the cottar who does pay rent to the landlord. But there is another class of cottars whom nothing in this definition will include—who do not pay rent to the landlord, but pay rent in service to the tenant. If they are turned out, I should like to know who is to give them compensation? The Act says they are to get compensation, but it does not say who they are to get it from. I think we ought to have the clause made more clear even than it would be by the Amendment of the Lord Advocate.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I venture to think that the Committee would not wish compensation to be given to persons who were on the land without the consent of the landlord. Their only claim for compensation would in justice lie against those who allowed them to be on the land.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I should be glad to accept the view of the Lord Advocate if the class of people in question were imported on to the land; but what are the facts? As a rule,
  108
  every cottar to be found squatting on property is either an evicted tenant or the descendant of an evicted tenant. He has been allowed to squat by the landlord, in order that he might avoid the necessity of turning him into a state of complete destitution. It is not accurate to say that these men are not upon the land with the tacit consent of the landlord as well as the crofter. Everyone knows that if it were not so the landlord could turn him and the crofter out. The law would assist him in doing so.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): This is a very wide definition. But there are two definitions—one is that a cottar is a man who pays, and the other that he is a man who does not pay, rent.
  MR. CROMPTON: I have a difficulty in understanding the definition which says that a cottar is the occupier of a house who pays no rent to the landlord. Though the Lord Advocate proposes to alter the definition originally in the Bill by the Amendment on the Paper in his name, his definition does not explain the question I ask—who is the man who does not pay rent to the landlord? It seems to me four or five classes of people come within that definition. First of all, there is the man who is allowed by the landlord to go on peaceably in a house without paying rent. He is a man who should be compensated. But, certainly, the man who is a squatter pays no rent, and the definition would entitle him to compensation. I am not quite sure whether it would not include the landlord himself, because he pays no rent. The cottar would, under this clause, be entitled to share in the benefit of extended pasturage. He is a man who pays no rent to the landlord, but to the crofter; and I should think he would be entitled to compensation. I cannot but think that this clause will be the cause of great confusion when the Act is passed if it is not made clearer. Certainly, it does not seem to be satisfactory in its present form.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I am afraid the present definition of "cottar" might refer to both crofters and cottars. A person who holds of a larger tenant is a crofter or cottar; and, according to the definition, a crofter is a man who resides on a small holding. He is also a cottar because he

  109
  resides in a house and pays no rent to the landlord. There is, undoubtedly, great confusion in the definition; and I do not think that the Lord Advocate quite realizes the position of the class for whom he proposes to legislate. I should like to know whether a man who has four or five acres of land and a dwelling-house is a cottar, and whether he is not also a crofter?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: At one time the sub-tenant was uncommon; but this applies to what is now undoubtedly a common case, and was reported to be so by the Royal Commission, of persons who are in relation with the landlord. I suggest that the matter should stand over, to see how the clause will read when reprinted in the amended form.
  MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY: Does not the Lord Advocate see that the building is actually included, and that money will be passed to someone? Surely there will be some person to receive it, and that will be the person who built the property. I suggest that the provision of the Irish Land Act should be applied.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 28, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "as also the tenant from year to year of a dwelling-house situated in a crofting parish who habitually resides therein, and who pays to the landlord therefor an annual rent not exceeding six pounds in money, whether with or without garden ground, but without arable or pasture land."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHANCE: I think in this case that the Lord Advocate cannot be said not to include in the Act compensation with respect to leases. I propose on that account to move the omission of the words "from year to year."
  THE CHAIRMAN: That has already been decided.
  MR. CHANCE: I think that decision was in reference to crofters only.
  MR. KIMBER: I wish to point out that the definition of "cottar" would seem to cover the case of a man who holds not from the landlord, but from the farmer, who may be an intermediate lessee. If that be so, he would be entitled under Clause 9 to compensation; but it does not appear
  110
  from whom that compensation is to be received. As I understand it, the cottar, as here defined, even if he be holding under a farmer as intermediate lessee, will come under the definition of a man who pays no rent to the landlord.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think the case put by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Kimber) does not come under the definition; but, as the point has been referred to, I shall consider it as he has suggested. My view is that the claim should not come against the landlord.
  MR. KIMBER: Do not the words "holds direct from the landlord" cover my case? You mean that the cottar must be a man who holds direct from the landlord, and yet pays no rent?
  MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY: I should say your definition ought to be wide enough to cover the case which may frequently arise of eviction of his sub-tenant by a farmer.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I suggest, for the purpose of making this definition more correct, that the word "habitually" should be left out.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, line 3, leave out the word "habitually."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, be added to the Clause."
  SIR JOHN RAMSDEN: There are many cases of persons who have houses with gardens around them, and who, although they do not occupy any pasture land, are in the habit of grazing cows on pasture land. Would they be cottars? Or are they, as it appears to me by the definition, crofters, which I think is not the intention of the Bill?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I should think that would not vary the position at all.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): The Amendment relating to the definition of "fisherman" is not necessary.
  MR. M'CULLOCH: I rise to move the omission of the word "the," in line 29, on the ground that the use of the definite

  111
  article would exclude every useful improvement which does not happen to be enumerated in the Schedule. This, I may point out, is one of the great defects of the Agricultural Holdings Act.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 29, to leave out the word "the."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I take the same view as my hon. Friend with regard to the Agricultural Holdings Act, because I entirely agree that any improvement should be paid for; but I suggest that under this Bill the Amendment of the hon. Member would be greatly at variance with the work which the Committee have already done. It has always been the custom to endeavour to define the nature of improvements. No doubt the hon. Member has in view improvements which add to the value of the holding. Does the hon. Member mean improvements which will permanently add to the value of the holding? There are several classes—liming, manuring, and so on.
  MR. M'CULLOCH: I should say that all improvements are more or less permanent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is of little use to speak of permanent improvements without defining under what class those improvements are to come. It would be quite a new procedure if they were not put in the Schedule, and great difficulty would arise in consequence.
  MR. M'CULLOCH: I had the pleasure of being one of those first consulted when an Agricultural Holdings Bill was drafted for Scotland. If my Amendment is not agreed to, how do you propose to deal with new improvements which may hereafter be introduced?
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Of course there are many improvements which are not permanent. Is it not the intention to compensate for such improvements?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The only necessity for mentioning the improvements is because we propose a much more liberal scale than that in the Act of 1873.
  DR. CLARK: We discussed this subject the other night for some hours, and the Lord Advocate agreed that other improvements should be scheduled. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would extend the Schedule by adding "manuring and liming;" but we have not yet any clause before us in which the Lord Advocate carries out the promise he made. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman point out how he proposes to give compensation both for improvements which are not permanent and those which are?
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 10, line 29, to leave out the words "specified in this Act," and insert "which add to the value of the subject, and to which the crofter shall be invested with full title and power of sale, unless he shall elect to have them valued over in manner provided in section ten of this Act: Provided always, That exception be made of those which have been executed by the landlord otherwise than in fulfilment of written agreement."—(Mr. M'Culloch.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): We cannot accept this Amendment. In this case the tenant would come under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
  DR. CLARK: I do not see why you should limit the operation of the Act to those who have held five years and longer than that period. There may be people who have succeeded by inheritance within the five years, and to them the Act will not apply. The words of the clause are—
  "And which has been occupied and used as arable or pasture land (whether such pasture land is held by the crofter alone, or in common with others) for a period of not less than five years prior to the passing of this Act."
  A woman may for a year or two have held the land of her deceased husband, but under these words she will lose all the powers and benefits of the Act. The proposed limitation is contrary to every theory on which the Bill is based, and we will see if the Lord Advocate understands his own theory or not. Let us see if he will apply it in favour of the crofters.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 35, to leave out the words "for a period of not less than five years."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR&c.): The object of putting in these words was simply to secure that a person should truly possess the character of a crofter. I have, however, no strong view in regard to them. I can quite conceive that they might work harshly, and therefore they might be left out.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I beg my right hon. and learned Friend's pardon. If he will look twice at the clause he will see that the words "five years" are applicable not to the tenure of a particular croft, but to the description of the ground. [Mr. J. B. BALFOUR: That was intended.] The phraseology of the clause is—
  "'Holding' means any piece of land held by a crofter, consisting of arable or pasture land, or of land partly arable and partly pasture, and which has been occupied and used as arable or pasture land (whether such pasture land is held by the crofter alone, or in common with others) for a period of not less than five years prior to the passing of this Act."
  In point of fact, it means this—that the Act is not to apply to any piece of hill ground which has been in the occupation of a crofter. The arguments of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) do not apply to the case at all.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: That was the intention, but subject to the criticism that it might apply to the case of somebody succeeding. I dare say my hon. Friend (Dr. Clark) will be satisfied with the assurance that the clause will not be subject to that difficulty.
  DR. CLARK: Even if it were not so ambiguous, and might not be used against those who succeed to a holding, why should a man who has taken a piece of hill and has improved the land lose any right to compensation for his improvements? On what ground of equity would you take from a man who has taken land and improved it the right to compensation for his improvement? If the land was not worth 1s., but has been made valuable by the investment of capital and labour, why should the tenant be refused the benefit of the Act?
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: The Bill certainly ought to apply to any piece of land which has been in the occupation of the tenant. I do not see why
  114
  a tenant who has improved a piece of hill should not receive the benefit of the Act.
  MR. HUNTER: May I point out to the Lord Advocate that there is great ambiguity in the clause as it stands. I need not read all the words; but the clause provides that—
  "'Holding' means any piece of land.… which has been occupied and used as arable or pasture land.… for not less than five years."
  These words leave it quite ambiguous as to by whom the land has been occupied.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think I should be disposed, for the present at all events, to leave out the words. The words may not be quite clear; but we can reconsider the matter before Report.
  MR. KIMBER: If these words be left out the clause will be ambiguous. The omission of these words will mean that a holding must be understood to be any piece of land which has been occupied or used for any time heretofore.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: If there was no other difficulty than that it could be got over by inserting the word "immediately." Perhaps it would be as well if I were to move to leave out "for a period of not less than five years prior to," in order to insert "immediately preceding."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 35, to leave out the words "for a period of not less than five years prior to," in order to insert the words "immediately preceding,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—instead thereof.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The definition provides that a "holding does not include garden ground only appurtenant to a house." I propose to amend the provision by inserting "or grazing" after "garden." My Amendment is intended to cover a case where a house forms the main value of the holding, but where there is a paddock or grazing land for a pony. I may say, in order to disarm opposition from hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway opposite, that the class of holdings to which I refer are really not holdings of crofters at all. The holdings are those

  115
  of well-to-do people, and are valued, say, at about £25 a-year. I am quite certain all the persons who occupy these holdings voted against hon. Members opposite; therefore, those hon. Gentlemen need not extend their sympathy to them. I think my Amendment gives completeness to the proposal. The second Amendment standing in my name refers to the case where the ground is partly garden and partly grazing.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 36, after the word "garden" to insert the words "or grazing."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): This Amendment recalls to memory our old friend the "three acres and a cow," and I do not think it ought to be accepted. As the Bill now stands a "holding" is not to include garden ground only. If a man has garden ground only he is a cottar, if he has grazing land he is a crofter.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): It seems to me that this Amendment might give rise to the rather difficult question whether grazing was appurtenant to the house or the house appurtenant to the grazing unless there is some definition of the relative value. I quite see that a mere paddock inclosed within a hedge should not make a man a crofter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that such a doubtful case might with safety be left to the Land Commission.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Perhaps it might without this definition.
  DR. CLARK: I think the two Amendments standing in the name of the Lord Advocate on page 15 of the Amendments will meet this case. If you accept the Amendment now under consideration it is quite possible that you would disqualify a large number of crofters, especially the men in Orkney and Shetland, who raise ponies and use their land for that purpose. There is a large number of people who only use their land for grazing purposes—they are fishermen and graziers combined. By this Amendment you would remove them at once from the position of crofters, and they would lose all the benefit of the Bill.
  116
  The power given to the Land Commission to determine such questions summarily will be quite sufficent to meet the case. If a man who has got grazing ground attached to his house should pose as a crofter the Land Commission may very summarily dismiss his application.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: If this Amendment were accepted this Bill would only apply to arable land, and not apply to any person except the very few crofters and cottars in the Western Highlands who have a piece of arable land.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Perhaps I may make a suggestion which the Lord Advocate can consider either immediately or at a later stage. I have no desire whatever to exclude persons having very small holdings—I mean holdings within the reach of real crofters. It occurs to me that one solution of the difficulty might be this—to define the house as being of a certain value, say £15. A house in the country of that value is a very good house. The clause might read—
  "Does not include garden or grazing ground only, appurtenant to a house of the value of £15."
  The case I want to exclude is the case of people who, with a total holding of £20, £25, or £30, have really paid the money for the house, and who have only a small piece of ground appurtenant to the house.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will leave the matter over until Report.
  MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY: It is well to bear in mind that serious injury would result from this Amendment. Take the case of a small croft upon which a good house has been built by a crofter, or some person in the position of a crofter. The house would actually form the main portion of the improvements to be compensated for. The moment the value of the house rises above the garden or the appurtenant grazing, it becomes the subject-matter of the letting. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will strongly resist the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My next Amendment to the clause—that

  117
  relating to the class of persons whose crofts are held by reason of some employment or office—is sufficiently met by one put down by the Lord Advocate after my Notice. My last Amendment deals with the case of mills. My impression is that there are many cases in which it would not be right to apply the provisions of the Act to mills.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I hardly think the Amendment is necessary.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish it I will not press the Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHANCE: The crofter must be a legal tenant. In Ireland there has been considerable difficulty in the matter, and therefore I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way on Report to add some clause to make the point clear.
  DR. CLARK: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) is a very important one, and I trust it will receive the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Perhaps it is as well I should bring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's recollection the fact that 18 months ago the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) introduced to him a deputation of crofters who were being evicted. The papers presented by the deputation clearly showed that some of the crofters held crofts from bog farmers. It is evident that something must be done for men in such a position.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Short title) agreed to.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I beg to propose to insert the following new Clause after Clause 13:—
  (Deduction from rent in case of lands held for sporting purposes.)
  "Where a portion of any land held under lease for the purposes of a deer forest, or of a grouse moor, or for other sporting purpose, is assigned by the Land Commission for the enlargement of the holding or holdings of a crofter or crofters under this Act, the Land Commission shall, when they so assign such land, fix the amount of the deduction (if any) which in their
  118
  judgment ought to be made from the rent payable by the tenant under the lease to the landlord, in respect of the portion of the land held under the same having been assigned as aforesaid, and thereafter the tenant under the lease shall be liable to the landlord only in the balance of the rent thereby stipulated, after deduction of the sum so fixed."
  New Clause brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURmoved the insertion of the following new Clause after Clause 14:—
  (Bequest of holding.)
  "A crofter may, by will or other testamentary writing, bequeath his right to his holding to one person, being a member of the same family, that is to say, his wife or any person who, failing nearer heirs, would succeed to him in case of intestacy (hereinafter called the 'legatee'), subject to the following provisions:—

  (a.) The legatee shall intimate the testamentary bequest to the landlord or his known agent within twenty-one days after the death of the crofter, unless he is prevented by some unavoidable cause from making intimation within that time, and, in that event, he shall make intimation as soon as possible thereafter;

  (b.) Intimation to the landlord or his known agent by the legatee shall import acceptance of the crofter's right to the holding by the legatee;

  (c.) Within one month after intimation has been made to the landlord or his known agent, he may intimate to the legatee that he objects to receive him as crofter in the holding.

  If the landlord or his known agent makes no such intimation within one month, the legatee shall come into the place of the crofter in the holding, and shall have all the rights, and be subject to all the liabilities, pertaining to the crofter therein, as from the date of the death of the deceased crofter;

  (d.) If the landlord or his known agent intimates that he objects to receive the legatee as crofter in the holding, the legatee may present a petition to the sheriff, praying for decree declaring that he is the crofter therein as from the date of the death of the deceased crofter, of which petition due notice shall be given to the landlord, who may enter appearance and state his grounds of objection; and, if any reasonable ground of objection is established to the satisfaction of the sheriff, he shall declare the bequest to be null and void; but, otherwise, he shall decree and declare in terms of the prayer of the petition;

  (e.) The decision of the sheriff under such petition as aforesaid shall be final;

  (f.) Pending any proceedings under this section, the legatee shall have possession of the holding unless the sheriff shall otherwise direct on cause shown;

  119

  (g.) If the legatee does not accept the bequest, or if the bequest is declared to be null and void as aforesaid, the right of the holding shall descend to the heir of the crofter, in the same manner as if the bequest had not been made."

  New Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I have an Amendment to propose to this clause. The object of the Amendment is very simple; it is, if possible, to slightly extend the scope of the Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes by this new clause to give to the crofter the power to bequeath his holding. The crofter cannot sell his holding; but that is not the question I want to discuss. What I want to do is to secure that the bequest can be made to any person, whether of the same family or not. At present the power of bequest is strictly limited to persons who would otherwise be heirs. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me this. In case of a crofter's decease without testamentary bequest, will his son inherit? Suppose a testamentary deposition does not, from ignorance, or neglect, or any other cause, take place, will the dying crofter's son come in to the property? There is no provision in Bill to entitle a crofter to bequeath the holding to his family. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept an Amendment in that direction?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Subject to proper qualifications.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "person," in line 2, to the word "legatee," in line 13.—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'being a member of the same family' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think I can, in a very few words, show that, so far from their being any inconsistency in this provision and the others, they are entirely consistent, and are intended to confer what I believe would very often be a very considerable benefit—namely, the right of selecting a heir from a large class of persons. The hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) has asked what is to become of the property in case of in-
  120
  testacy? Undoubtedly, by the law of Scotland, it would, as real property, go to the heir. I am afraid that if this Amendment were accepted, it would not be consistent with the decision the Committee has already come to on the subject of free sale, because if there was to be bequest outside the very large group of persons—practically, the clan, who would feel themselves heirs—there would be the right to bring in strangers. We should not be doing right if we accepted this Amendment.
  MR. KIMBER: I believe this clause was introduced in consequence of some suggestions I made on the second reading. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has been able to give his attention to some notes I gave him, and whether the clause, in its present form, completely effects the object intended—whether there is not a case which is not provided for? I cannot say whether words necessary to cover the case should be inserted in the clause we are now discussing; but I will explain the point I have put before the Lord Advocate. Under Sub-section (c) the landlord may object to the legatee as successor, and under Sub-section (d), if the landlord objects, the legatee may present a petition and may have it adjudicated upon. But nothing is provided as to what shall take place if the legatee does not present a petition.
  THE CHAIRMAN: These questions will come up subsequently. The Question is, "That the words 'being a member of the same family' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MACFARLANE: I think we have now arrived at a contentious question which cannot possibly be disposed of within the next hour. I, therefore, move that you, Mr. Courtney, should report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I hope this Motion will not be pressed. It will not take very much longer to get through the Bill. It is of very great importance, whatever view hon. Members may take of the Bill, that we should get through Committee to-night, and that the Bill, as amended, may be circulated throughout Scotland during the Recess. We

  121
  shall then have the benefit of communications from all persons interested. This is one of the points I should be quite ready to take in the most informal way, and give effect to any opinion that prevails. If there is a prevalent feeling that this somewhat larger extension should be made, I certainly should not resist it. I hope we shall not be put to the trouble of a division.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) will allow us to proceed with the Bill. I am quite satisfied Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House are anxious to support the Government as far as they can in the endeavour to finish the Committee stage to-night, which cannot last very long now. Of course I shall be prepared to deal with the Amendment when the present Motion is disposed of.
  MR. MACFARLANE: The Lord Advocate has expressed his readiness to ascertain the prevalent opinion upon this subject. It is very hard to ascertain the prevalent opinion of the Committee at 1 o'clock in the morning. It is perfectly clear this is a most contentious subject, and that much discussion must take place before justice can be done to it. I must divide the Committee on the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I must appeal to my hon. Friend not to press the Motion. Of course, I quite agree with him that the Amendment he has moved to the new clause is one which might very fairly be accepted by the Lord Advocate.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 161: Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 83.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'being a member of the same family,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to point out, in regard to the words the hon. Member has proposed, that, in the first place, if we adopt them we shall put the crofter in a far better position than any tenant in any part of England or Ireland; secondly, we shall be accepting a principle which we have rejected over and over again in this Committee—the principle of free
  122
  sale; and, in the third place, I would point out that they are wholly antagonistic to the principle on which this Bill is founded. This Bill is based upon the hereditary principle, and it is in consequence of that that special privileges are given the crofter. Therefore, I trust that the Lord Advocate will not throw to the winds the principles which he has so often and so powerfully advocated, but will adhere to the Bill in its present shape.
  MR. MACFARLANE: The whole Bill is to give to Scotch crofters, under the special circumstances of the case, special terms which English tenants have not got. I fully understand that the Lord Advocate would personally be willing to accept the Amendment; but he has got his cue from the Co-operative Benches, and that he will therefore vote against it. If that is so I shall divide the Committee.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think we had better settle the question at once by a division.
  MR. HUNTER: What the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has said with regard to what he calls the principle on which the Bill is founded, I would suggest is all nonsense.
  MR. SMALL: I would point out that under the Irish Act the Irist tenants enjoy an unlimited power of devise by will, and there are no more special claims in regard to Ireland. The grievances of which the crofters and the Irish tenants complain are very much the same, and I cannot see why we should make flesh of one and fish of the other. As an Irish Member, I feel bound to say that I do not see that the Irish tenants should be treated differently to the Scotch crofters.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: That would be all very well if the circumstances were the same; but they are not. There is no law of custom, or anything else—in fact, the cases are entirely different.
  MR. CHANCE: Having looked somewhat carefully into the two cases, I am of opinion they are absolutely analogous,
  DR. CLARK: The Lord Advocate was doubtful on this point before we had a division. He was anxious to take the evident sense of the Committee. There was one Member rose after that to object to the Amend-

  123
  ment, and he at once knew what the "evident sense" of the Committee was. The opposition to this Amendment reminds me of the fact that in China if you give a proper price you can get people to commit suicide, for it appears to be the idea that if these words are passed, people will die in order to be able to dispose of their holdings.
  MR. HALDANE: Generally I find myself in accord with the Lord Advocate, and sometimes with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour); but I cannot discover any valid reasons that can be assigned in opposition to the Amendment. There seems to me to be absolutely nothing in the way of giving this right of bequest. It has nothing to do with the principle of free sale. Therefore, I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
  An hon. MEMBER: It appears to me that the introduction of this Amendment would lead to a great deal of bickering and ill-feeling on crofts between the relatives of people who might appear likely shortly to quit this life.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 88: Majority 6.—(Div. List, No. 84.)
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. It is a quarter past 1 o'clock. I make this Motion, not only for the particular reason that this is not a Bill worth sitting up for, but for the general reason that it is not conducive to the health of Members to sit up later than this.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I think it would be advantageous, and in accordance with the general feeling of the Committee, that we should go on with the Bill in order to complete the Committee stage to-night, so that the Bill may be printed during the Easter Recess.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I hope the evident sense of the Committee will be that it is now time to go home.
  124
  I have no further interest in this matter. I have moved my last Amendment, and shall take no further part in the moulding of the Bill; but it seems to me quite time that the Committee were released from its labours.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If the hon. Member has moved his last Amendment, and intends to take no further part in dealing with the Bill, there is no reason why he should not now go home. We are just going to separate for the Easter Recess; there are only a few more Amendments, none of which are likely to take up much time, and it is most desirable that the people who will be affected by the Bill should have it placed in their hands in its amended form during the Recess, so that they can see what has been done for them. If I represented a crofter contituency I should think I was not adopting a course that would recommend itself to my constituents if I were a party to making it known to them that, on the eve of the Recess, the Bill was prevented from being sent to them in its amended form. I earnestly hope the hon. Member will withdraw his objection to the Committee being proceeded with, and allow the Bill to be completed, as it can fairly be completed, in a very short time by hon. Gentlemen who are anxious to go on with it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Wandsworth move his Amendment?
  MR. KIMBER: I have communicated on the subject with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, and he has been good enough to say that he will consider the subject on a future stage of the Bill.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Mr. CHANCE: I am in doubt about one matter. So far as I can see, the tenant remains a tenant from year to year, his rent is not to be interfered with for seven years, and he is not to be evicted unless he commits a breach of certain conditions. But I do not see anything in the Bill analogous to that in the Irish Act dealing with the matter of intestacy.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I can

  125
  assure the hon. Member that there is no doubt whatever on the point of intestacy.
  MR. CHANCE: Sub-section "g" says—
  "If the legatee does not accept the bequest, or if the bequest is declared to be null and void as aforesaid, the right of the holding shall descend to the heir of the crofter, in the same manner as if the bequest had not been made."
  That is not what we should call a freehold. It is really still a chattel interest.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): Is it intended to give the cottar a right to compensation? If he is to have no right of bequest, what becomes of his right to compensation? Is it intended not to give him any?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I will make a note of the point raised by the hon. Member, and will give it careful consideration.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I beg to move the insertion, in page 10, after Clause 28, of the following new Clause:—
  (Loans for the purchase and equipment of fishing boats.)
  "For the purpose of enabling the Fishery Board for Scotland established under 'The Fishery Board (Scotland) Act, 1882,' to make advances by way of loan to persons engaged in the prosecution of the fishing industry, whether crofters or others, in crofting parishes in all or any of the counties embraced in this Act, and abutting upon the sea, it shall be lawful for the Treasury to advance to the Fishery Board such sums as may from time to time be placed at their disposal by Parliament for the purpose.
  "The purposes to which the sums advanced as aforesaid shall be applied by way of loan shall be deemed to include the building, purchase, or repair of vessels, boats, and gear for fishing purposes, and any other purpose of the like nature, for the benefit or encouragement of the fishing industry within the localities above specified, which may be sanctioned by the Fishery Board, with consent of the Secretary for Scotland.
  "The loans in making which the said sums shall be applied, shall be made by the Fishery Board upon such terms as to repayment, security, rate, and payment of interest, and otherwise, as the Secretary for Scotland, with the consent of the Treasury, shall determine.
  "All moneys due in respect of loans made under this Act, may be recovered by the Fishery Board summarily, in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and the secretary of the Board for the time being shall have power to sue for and recover such moneys in name of the Board.
  "A certificate, purporting to be signed by the chairman and secretary of the Fishery Board, stating the amount due from any person in re-
  126
  spect of any loan made to him under this Act, together with the interest thereon, shall, until the contrary is proved, be evidence of the amount due and of the liability of the person therein named to pay the same.
  "If at any time while any part of a loan under this Act remains unpaid, the Fishery Board are satisfied that the borrower is not carrying into effect the undertaking for which the loan was made, they may forthwith sue for and recover summarily the loan and all moneys due by him in respect thereof.
  "All moneys recovered by the Fishery Board in repayment of such loans, and interest thereon, shall be paid by the Fishery Board to the account of Her Majesty's Exchequer, as the Treasury may from time to time direct.
  "The Fishery Board shall, in the annual report to be made by them to the Secretary for Scotland, in terms of 'The Fishery Board (Scotland) Act, 1882,' and 'The Secretary for Scotland Act, 1885,' give an account of their intromissions under this Act during the preceding year."
  New Clause (Loans for the purchase and equipment of fishing boats,)—(The Lord Advocate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. CRAIG-SELLAR: I have taken no action in the discussion of this Bill, because I have been anxious that the work should be left to hon. Members who have made a special study of the question. It has struck me that the most valuable thing a Member can do with a view to assist in the passing of this Bill, in which many hon. Members take an active interest, is to speak as seldom as possible. However, I feel that I must say a word or two upon this clause. In my opinion, this proposal embodies a most valuable provision; and I believe that, if the clause is added to the Bill in a generous and a liberal spirit, it will do quite as much, and perhaps more, for the benefit of the crofters than many of the clauses we have passed, and most of the Amendments we have rejected. I had intended to speak at some little length upon this subject; but at this hour I shall not detain the Committee more than a moment or two. I shall merely ask the attention of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to one point, and it is this. He proposes in this clause only to provide for boats and nets—that is to say, for fishing gear. Fishing gear is of great value to these people, no doubt; but I

  127
  would ask of what value is it to give to such fishing crofters as those of Uist and Benbecula fishing gear when, although they may catch any quantity of fish, they cannot get them to market? What is wanted is to give these men not only the means of support by crofting and fishing, but to enable them to make such a living that they may be able to lay up some little fortune for their old age; and this can only be effected if facilities are given to enable these fishermen to send their fish to market and make some money by them. Postal and steamboat communication is a necessary accessory to supplies of fishing gear. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will consider this matter in connection with the proposal of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson)—namely, after "sea," inline 5, to insert—
  "Or to guarantee to Her Majesty's Postmaster General the sums necessary to provide for the conveyance of mails and of fish to market from any of such counties."
  I hope that something liberal may be done in the way of extending postal and steamboat communication.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must point out that the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester would not be in Order. The authority in this clause does not extend further than to loans for the purchase and equipment of fishing boats.
  MR. CRAIG-SELLAR: As I am speaking upon the second reading of the clause, I thought I was entitled to go generally into these matters. Considering the enormous sums we shall be asked, under another scheme to which I must not allude, to give to the landlords in another country, it seemed to me reasonable that some adequate assistance should be extended to the class of people to whom I have referred.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am afraid the hon. Member who has just spoken cannot have heard my explanation as to what was being done by the Government in this matter. We have done a great deal in the way of extending telegraphic communication; a great deal has been done also in the way of improving the steamer service; and the improvements which have been effected
  128
  have operated largely to the benefit of the fishermen of the Hebrides. To do what the hon. Member proposes would be to make invasions upon a fund which will all be wanted for the fishing purposes specified in the clause. We are endeavouring, through the Post Office and other Departments, to give all the facilities that are required.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: My hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate have touched upon an Amendment which I was going to move, before an opportunity has been given to me for bringing it forward. I do not know whether I shall now be in Order in proposing it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That this Clause be read a second time."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That this Clause be added to the Bill."
  DR. CLARK: There is an Amendment to be moved, I think.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I should like to make one or two remarks as to this matter of fishing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate says that a great deal has been done in the way of making communication more effectual between the Western Islands and the markets of the South; but I wish to say that, however much you may give the fisherman for boats and gear, it will be of no use, unless an effort is made to enable the fishermen to send their goods cheaply to market. I will give an instance of the difficulty experienced in getting any good return for the fish sent to market. Four men were engaged in fishing for four days off the Island of Barra. They got six boxes of fish sent to Glasgow where they realized £2 14 s. The carriage came to £1 13 s. 9d., the market dues and commission to 8s. 9d., making £2 2s. 6d.; thus leaving the four fishermen only 11 s. 6d. for four days' work. Seeing that it only took a few hours to get the fish to Oban from Castle Bay, it seems to me that this sum of £1 13 s. 9d. for freight was exorbitant, and steps should be taken to put matters on a fair footing.
  Ms. BRUNNER: I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will

  129
  call to Order the next hon. Member who uses as an argument, either for or against anything in this Bill, the statement that a large sum of money is to be given to the tenants of Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out, with reference to the Motion which stands in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson), that the authority to be given to this Commission to deal with money extends only to advances in the shape of loans to persons engaged in the fishing industry; therefore, this Committee has no authority to raise money for the purpose of facilitating communication.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: As it is intended that the money shall be granted by the Treasury to the Fishery Board for the purpose of being advanced for purposes of fishing, I thought that sums might be advanced by the Board to the Post Office for subsidizing steamers engaged in this traffic. Am I to understand that that is out of Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): That is out of Order.
  DR. CLARK: I think the Clause might be amended on the lines suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrew's (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), so as to enable piers and harbours to be made. After "building" in the second paragraph, I would propose the addition of the words "of piers, harbours, or landing stages for fishermen." In one of the Islands in the district I represent there is no harbour or pier for the fishermen at all, and when the boats come in they often lose their fish, being unable to bring it to land. Take Stroma Island: there is a very heavy tide—a seven-knot tide—running there, there is no landing stage, and the fishermen have to jump into the water and to dance and dodge to prevent their boats from being swamped. They want a harbour or pier to enable them to land their fish.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members wish to know whether all this is in Order. The authority given is to enable advances to be made in the shape of loans to persons engaged in the fishing industry. The clause speaks of certain individual persons—namely, fishermen;
  130
  therefore, it could not possibly be extended to the building of piers.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that my recollection in Office was that there is a sum at present in the hands of the Fishery Board to be devoted to such purposes as the making of piers and harbours. When I was in Office, it was the intention of the Government to devote part of such sum to these purposes. It is therefore, perhaps, unnecessary to put this in the Bill.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I trust the Committee will not think me out of Order in expressing my regret that the money in this clause is to be granted for this limited purpose. I take a great interest in this matter, and have followed with a great deal of attention the efforts which have been made for the assistance of the people engaged in fishing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must put the Question. It is, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I wish to point out how deplorably we are falling short of doing a great thing for these people by limiting the grants to this very narrow purpose of fishing boats and fishing gear. The Royal Commission pointed out how, over a great part of the coast, most favourable opportunities of fishing were lost, by reason of there being no shelter for vessels capable of going out to sea. But the point I am most desirous of pressing on the Committee and Her Majesty's Government is that it is most necessary that the fish these people catch should be brought to market. I am aware that the Post Office are doing something to extend steamer communication, and that since the 1st of March steamers have been run from Oban up as far as Loch Boisdale, so as to enable fish to be brought to Billingsgate on the second morning from the departure of the boats; but it is impossible to send fish by steamer from points further north than Loch Boisdale, and a great quantity of fish, such as turbot and hallibut, are absolutely wasted. Fish of this kind, consequently, are either not caught, or if they are caught they go for nothing. If steamers, instead of stopping at Loch Boisdale, were to go round to

  131
  Portree, the fishermen would be able to send their fish by railway by way of Strome Ferry and Inverness. The same Company is willing to run steamers around the West Coast of Skye and the Island of Lewis if it is made worth its while, and I do beg the Government not to lose sight of the matter. A small guarantee of £3,000 would be quite sufficient to carry this out. Such a guarantee would enable the fishermen to turn their industry to profitable account.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I beg to move the insertion of the following new clause:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any holding let to a person during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employment of the landlord, or of any tenant of the landlord."
  New Clause (Saving in case of holdings in possession of servants,)—(The Lord Advocate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. INCE: I rise for the purpose of moving, Mr. Courtney, that you do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again. There are 14 other Orders of the Day, and I think it is quite time the Government told us whether or not they are going to attempt any further Business to-night. I have no objection to Scotch Members stopping here all night if they choose; but I should like to ask whether the Government mean to attempt anything else but this Bill? Will anybody say whether they intend to take the consideration of the Infants Bill as amended?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Government do not propose to take any other Bills to-night. I suppose it is the Infants Bill the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know about?
  MR. INCE: Yes.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Government do not propose to take that Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to propose the following Amendment to the Lord Advocate's new clause:—
  132
  (Saving in case of holdings in possession of servants), line 3, at end, add "nor to any holding occupied by any minister, schoolmaster, innkeeper, blacksmith, carpenter, wright, builder, or shopkeeper which has been let to the tenant by reason of his carrying on such profession or trade on the property of the landlord."
  The object of this Amendment is clear on the face of it, and I do not wish, at this time of night, to go into it at any length. I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate knows the intention with which it is moved; and if he will give me an assurance that he will consider the matter before the Report I will not proceed further in the matter.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I will promise to do that. The matter is one which will require a great deal of consideration, for it seems to me that some part of this proposal would be very dangerous. It seems to me, it would be dangerous to leave it to the Commission to decide whether it would be to the benefit of the community that such saving should exist.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CHANCE: I beg to move the insertion of the clause which stands in my name on the Paper as follows:—

  "(1.) The crofter may serve upon the landlord a notice claiming to be admitted tenant of the lands, with the rights of grazing, pasturing, turf, fishing, and taking shell fish and sea weed, and at the rent therein specified, and, in case the landlord does not within fourteen days after the service of such notice serve upon the crofter a notice admitting the crofter tenant from the first term of Whitsuntide or Martinmas next succeeding such original notice of such lands, with such rights, and at such rent of, aforesaid, the crofter may apply to the Land Commission to determine whether, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and district, it is reasonable that the crofter should be admitted tenant of such lands, with such rights and at such rent as aforesaid, and, in case the Land Commission determine that it is reasonable that the crofter should be so admitted, the Land Commission shall pronounce an order accordingly, and shall, by such order, declare the crofter entitled to all law and other costs and expenses incurred by reason of the neglect or refusal of the landlord to admit the crofter to be tenant in accordance with the terms of his notice.

  "(2.) The rights specified in the notice served by the crofter under this section may be more

  133
  extensive than, or different from, the rights then held or enjoyed by the crofter.

  "(3.) A notice served by the landlord admitting the crofter tenant under the provisions of this section shall have the same effect as an order pronounced by the Land Commission under the sixth section of this Act.

  "(4.) Upon any application under this section, the Land Commission shall determine how far the notice served by the crofter should be complied with, and shall pronounce an order accordingly."

  The clause will not extend the scope of the Bill, or give crofters any new rights whatsoever. In the case of small holdings it will be a very serious thing indeed if the crofters have to apply to a legal tribunal and bring the question at issue to a trial before they can get the slightest increase to their rights. The result will be that one or two crofters will apply to the Court, and the cost of their action will be found so great that the others will deem it wiser for them to suffer the present unsatisfactory condition of things rather than appeal to the Commissioners. We have just been told of a case in which, under the Compensation for Agricultural Improvements Act, a man applied to the Court for £80, the value of improvements, and was awarded £6, the costs amounting to £44. The first part of this clause is so worded that the landlord will be compelled to admit that the demand made by the crofter is reasonable, or else go into the Court and show that it is unreasonable, in which event the crofter will have to pay the costs. I say—
  "The crofter may serve upon the landlord a notice claiming to be admitted tenant of the lands, with the rights of grazing, pasturing, turf, fishing, and taking shell fish and sea weed, and at the rent therein specified, and, in case the landlord does not within fourteen days after the service of such notice serve upon the crofter a notice admitting the crofter tenant from the first term of Whitsuntide or Martinmas next succeeding such original notice of such lands, with such rights, and at such rent of, aforesaid, the crofter may apply to the Land Commission to determine whether, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and district, it is reasonable that the crofter should be admitted tenant of such lands, with such rights, and at such rent as aforesaid;"
  and so on. By this Amendment a tenant would anticipate this scheme, and say—"I think it reasonable that I should have certain rights," and he would get them, without the intervention of this Act or of a Court of Law,
  134
  and without expense to anyone. Then, to meet the objection which might be made in connection with Section 11, I say—
  "In case the Land Commission determine that it is reasonable that the crofter should be so admitted, the Land Commission shall pronounce an order accordingly, and shall, by such order, declare the crofter entitled to all law and other costs and expenses incurred by reason of the neglect or refusal of the landlord to admit the crofter to be tenant in accordance with the terms of his notice."
  That is to say, instead of requiring them to apply, as under Clause 11, for additional grazing land, they may go direct to the landlord, who, if he chooses to refuse to enlarge the holding, and the Court, on application being made to them, take a contrary view, will be compelled to pay the costs. Then the next two sub-sections are complementary. I say—
  "The lands and rights specified in the notice served by the crofter under this section may be more extensive than, or different from, the lands and rights then held or enjoyed by the crofter."
  And Sub-section 3 reads—
  "A notice served by the landlord admitting the crofter tenant under the provisions of this section shall have the same effect as an order pronounced by the Land Commission under the sixth section of this Act."
  The object of that is to fix the rent for seven years, and the last sub-section deals with cases where the crofter may have made an unreasonable application, and points out where such an application has been made the Land Commission shall determine how far the notice should be complied with. The whole object of the clause is to prevent these unfortunate people from being compelled to go 20 or 30 miles to a Court and to employ a lawyer and a number of witnesses, and so on, where it is unnecessary, in order to compel the landlord to act legally. The crofters, after a few cases have been heard, will get to know what is the law; the landlords will know the same, and they will be able to avail themselves of this section, and in that way save a great deal of expense.
  New Clause (Crofter may serve notice on landlord claiming to be admitted tenant,)—(Mr. Chance,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I am afraid that neither in substance nor in form would it be possible to accept this Amendment. It would be quite against the conception of the Bill. Without delaying the Committee, I may say that though the hon. Member's object is a good one, it would not be consistent with the remainder of the Bill to accept the proposal.
  MR. CHANCE: I have turned over the pages of Hansard for 1880 and 1881, and I find that the language I have employed was then used. I am convinced that many tenants who have a substantial claim, and who ought to have the benefit of the Irish Land Act, do not get that benefit, in consequence of the expense entailed by putting it in force. It may be that the phraseology will not meet with the approval of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate; but I will withdraw the Amendment at once if he will undertake on Report to bring up an Amendment in the same spirit, enabling the tenant to get his rights from the landlord.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I will yield the point of the hon. Member to the extent of considering the matter before Report.
  MR. CHANCE: I understand that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will endeavour to bring up a clause on Report that will deal with the landlord who unreasonably refuses to obey the order of the Court.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I shall endeavour to consider the matter before Report.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. DONALD CRA WFORD, in moving the insertion of the following new Clause after Clause 14:—
  "The stock upon any holding may be made a security for a loan or other valuable consideration, and the instrument creating such security, hereinafter termed a mortgage, shall be in such form as the Secretary for Scotland may prescribe, and, on the production of such instrument the sheriff clerk shall record the same in the Crofters' Holdings Book,"
  said: The object of the clause I have to propose is to render operative one of the principal provisions of the Bill which gives facilities for the enlargement of holdings. This provision is fenced round with a number of restrictions, for which, when they passed
  136
  through Committee, reasons more or less conclusive were assigned; and I am afraid, if the Bill stands as it is, that the provision for obtaining more land will be almost inoperative in the Highlands. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to mitigate the severity of the restriction which makes it incumbent on the crofter to show that he has means to stock more land than he has. Well, Sir, I think that, in many cases, the crofter will not be able to show that he can stock more land unless the Committee comes to his aid. This Amendment, then, is to make a fund of the stock of cattle on the holding—to make it a fund of credit, which at present it is not. As lawyers are aware, it is not legal to make chattels or movable property a fund in Scotland. But I would point out that, in those countries in which similar industries to those carried on in the Highlands are most extensive and important, such as our own Colonies of Victoria and New South Wales, 25 or 30 years ago the Common Law was altered by special Statute in the direction which I now indicate, under which the Colonists were authorized to give real security over their stock; and this, I believe, is considered to have been the foundation of prosperity in those Colonies, millions of money having been lent on that security. I shall not enlarge on the subject, but shall leave the clause in the hands of the Committee; and I trust the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will take it into consideration, because I am sure that, by agreeing to it, a great boon will be conferred upon the crofter.
  New Clause (Mortgage of stock,)—(Mr. Donald Crawford,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): This is a matter which we have carefully considered, not only since the hon. Member placed his Amendment on the Paper, but previously. But it is only right that I should put before the Committee what appears to me to be a very serious objection to the hon. Member's proposal both in principle and in point of expediency. According to the law of Scotland, it is a well-settled and universal rule that moveable chattels, as they are

  137
  called in England, cannot be made security without possession; and that rule is founded upon a consideration which I believe will be appreciated by the Committee—namely, that there should not be instruments different from other instruments before the creditors. It would be very strange if the principle were introduced for the first time into Scotland, at the same moment when the evil and difficulty resulting from a different rule of the law has been formed, and when the law in England is being gradually altered. The consequence of a different rule in England has been the raising of false credit; and it has been found very dangerous to persons who used the right of pledging their property by bills of sale. I think in the last Parliament two Bills were passed to alter and, I believe, to do away with the rule altogether. Again, in a legal sense, the security would be wholly worthless. What is the security? I can understand that it is a security in Australia, where you have many thousands of cattle and sheep in the herds, and where the deaths are compensated by a corresponding number of births. But let the Committee look at the cases to which this Amendment is intended to apply—where the stock consists of a few, or perhaps of two cows, and a death or two might discharge your security altogether. But this is to be a security which it is competent for the crofter to sell, although there is the security over it, so that it is bringing back the old Law of Hypothec—that is to say, of pledge without possession. I understand that this is a proposal to credit hypothec security without possession, on land belonging to someone else. Now that would be a very strange piece of legislation, for having done away with the Law of Hypothec in a former year we should be bringing it back in 1886. I fear that the result would be to make the people in the Highlands and Islands poorer than they are, and do them a great deal of harm. I think the Committee will pause before it accepts such an Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to point out that the Royal Commission approved a scheme precisely similar to that now proposed by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Donald Crawford). They proposed that the Government should lend the money. It should be remembered that this is a
  138
  suggestion made by a practical farmer and improver of land. The system is working very well in Germany, where the result is that the occupier is able both to buy stock and to buy the holding; and if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will look into the plain suggestion which the Royal Commission tells us deserves the consideration of the Government; if he will look at the system in operation in Germany, and give the Scotch crofters what is there given to German peasants, I think it will have a good effect; because, unless some assistance is given in that direction, the scheme will be practically useless. In my opinion, the proposal of the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire is one which thoroughly deserves the support of the Committee.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to point out that Sub-section 3 says that the mortgagee shall not, by reason of his mortgage, be deemed to be the owner of any such stock; and then that the 4th sub-section says that every registered mortgagee shall have power absolutely to dispose of the stock in respect of which he is registered, and to give effectual receipts to the purchaser for the price, and then that if the stock has been removed from the holding the mortgagee shall not be entitled to dispose of it. The words are without meaning.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: This matter of raising money on farm stocks has been considered in Scotland for years, and I can only refer the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to the Reports which have been made on the subject. I think if the principle is found to work well in new countries that the Government might very well indeed sanction this small boon to the crofters.
  MR. HALDANE: Whatever might be the effect of introducing this system into the North of Scotland, it is certainly quite contrary to our experience here that any good should come from it. I believe it is customary, in the North of Scotland, for the banks to lend against stock. Of course, if they do that, as the law stands in Scotland, it means that they take the stock, not as security for the amount of the debt, but as an indication of the solvency of the borrower. They can do that still; but to alter the law which

  139
  assumes the property to be inseparable from the possession is simply to do what we have been undoing in England. We have found that bills of sale and mortgages, under which property is separated from possession, have a most unwholesome effect. The principle advocated by the hon. Member is something quite unknown to the law of Scotland, and the proposal is hardly necessary, when you consider that the banks take stock as a sort of index of the solvency of the borrowers. It has been found in England to be a bad one, and I hope that the Committee will not sanction the introduction of the clause.
  Question put, and negatived.
  New Clause:—
  (Restoration of evicted crofters.)
  "On the application of any person who is, or who at any former time was, a crofter or cottar on an estate, or of the descendant or husband of a female descendant of any person who was a crofter or cottar on an estate, the Land Commission may designate any land on the same estate as suitable for being held as a croft, and may assign such land to be held as a croft by the applicant, on being satisfied that he has by himself or his family ability to cultivate the same properly, and such croft shall thereafter be deemed to be in all respects a croft within this Act, provided that the Commission shall not be bound to admit such applicant as a crofter if it shall be shown that he, or the predecessor under whom he claims, was removed from the estate for any criminal offence, poaching excepted,"—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read the second time."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): We cannot assent to this Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: This Amendment is an attempt on the part of my hon. Friend to carry out the principle of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My hon. Friend has drafted this as a modification—as a kind of compromise which he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept, because it is based upon his own theory. The object is to reinstate those crofters who have been deprived unjustly of their hereditary right in the soil. There is no reason why this Bill should not extend to those who have been entitled to holdings, who have been turned out of them notwithstanding ancient law and custom.
  MR. CHANCE: I suggest an Amendment to the clause as proposed by the hon. Member—namely, to strike out the words—
  "Or of the descendant or husband of a female descendant of any person who was a crofter or cottar on an estate,"
  and insert—
  "and was compulsorily removed from his holding."
  That would certainly be a very moderate proposal, and clearly within the limits of the doctrine laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: This is the wildest proposal I have heard of. Many years ago a crofter has been removed from his holding, no doubt for the best possible reason, but his descendant is to be reinstated.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 91: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 85.)
  MR. FRANK HARDCASTLE: I beg to move the insertion of the following new clause:—
  "The tenant under lease of a farm, forest, or moor, shall not be entitled to claim from the landlord as compensation for the loss of the pasture land, assigned under this Act to a crofter or crofters, anything beyond the rent agreed to be paid by such crofter or crofters in respect of the pasture land so assigned."
  New Clause (Compensation to tenant limited to crofter's rent,)—(Mr. Frank Hardcastle,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
  MR. HUNTER: On behalf of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), I beg to move the following new clause which stands in his name:—
  "Fishermen, fish-curers, and others engaged in the fisheries shall have and exercise the free use of all ports, harbours, and foreshores, and of any waste land on the sea coast within one hundred yards of high-water mark for landing nets, casks, and other materials, utensils, and stores, and for erecting tents, huts, and stages, and for landing, pickling, curing, and reloading fish, drying nets, hauling up boats, and for other purposes connected with the catching and curing of fish without paying any charge or dues or other consideration for the use thereof:

  141
  Provided, That this Clause shall not exempt vessels or boats from the payment of such harbour or pier dues as are authorised to be levied by statute."
  New Clause (To grant free use of waste land on foreshores for landing and curing fish,)—(Mr. Hunter,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): This is a matter which has been regulated by a somewhat obscure series of Statutes; and I rather think that a Statute of 1868, probably unintentionally, repealed certain parts, although it is not easy at the moment to say how much was repealed. I will consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill to make the re-enactment of them applicable to Scotland generally.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move the following new clause:—
  "Upon any order under clause sixteen of this Act being confirmed, the Land Commission shall cause the same to be intimated to every proprietor of a holding or holdings within the district specified in the order. Every such proprietor shall be entitled, by writing under his hand delivered to the sheriff clerk within thirty days after the intimation to such proprietor, to declare his willingness to sell any holding or holdings belonging to him and included in the order. Such declaration shall be held to impart an offer to sell such holding or holdings to the occupant or occupants of the same at a sum amounting to twenty-five years' purchase of and shall be open to acceptance for sixty days from its delivery to the sheriff clerk. The price shall be payable as follows: not less than one-fifth part on acceptance of the offer, and the remaining four-fifths in portions of not less than one-twentieth each year thereof for twenty years, interest being chargeable on the portion unpaid at the rate of three and a-half per cent. per annum. The unpaid portion of the price shall form a real burden on the lands. The landlord shall have right, on failure of due payment of any instalment, to reacquire the said lands on repayment by him of the moneys paid to him."
  I tried to apply the same principle to the additional land leased to the tenant, and I shall take the decision then arrived at as the decision upon this point. I do not intend to ask the Committee to divide; but I move the clause that it may be negatived, and the record remain on the Journals of the House.
  New Clause (Proceedings after confirmation of order,)—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): The right hon. Gentleman does not think we could possibly accept this Amendment; it is quite plain we could not.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Schedule.
  MR. CHANCE: I beg to move, as an Amendment, that "planting of trees" be inserted in the Schedule.
  Amendment proposed, to amend the Schedule by adding the words "planting of trees."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): Yes, Mr. Courtney; I think the Amendment is quite reasonable.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, to further amend the Schedule by adding the words "making piers or landing stations."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I consider this, also, a very suitable addition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be considered upon Monday 3rd May, and be printed."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood it was not to be taken on the 3rd of May, but that the Business for that day was Supply.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I do not propose to take it on the 3rd of May; but I think it is well it should be put down for that day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Prime Minister distinctly stated, when questioned as to the course of Business, that the Business for Monday,

  143
  the 3rd of May, would be Supply and the Budget Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I certainly do not propose to take it on the 3rd; I only propose to put it down for that day.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be printed. [Bill 200.]

  POLICE FORCES ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.— [BILL 3.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke, Mr. Cowen, Sir George Russell, Lord Charles Beresford, Mr. Howard Vincent.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I beg to propose that the Order be postponed until the 3rd of May.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Monday, the 3rd day of May next, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, Progress was reported upon this Bill about a week since, and it was then put down for last Thursday. A great many of my Colleagues, at considerable inconvenience to themselves, waited here till a very late hour in order to take part in the discussion of the Bill. Without any explanation, however, being vouchsafed to the Committee, so far as I am aware, by anyone, much less by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who has charge of the Bill, it was not taken on that evening, but was put down for this evening. And now, very much to my surprise, when it has been reached again this evening, and a considerable number of my Friends and Colleagues have remained here until this advanced hour—until half-past 2 o'olock—without any information or hint whatever, until a few minutes ago, that the Bill was not to be brought on to-night, we are again told that it is proposed that the Bill shall be postponed until the 3rd of May. Now, Sir, what day is the 3rd of May? It is the day upon which the House re-assembles after the Easter Recess. It is very significant that the very day on which the House adjourns for the holidays should have been chosen for this Bill, and then, when that did not for some
  144
  reason or other suit the promoters of the Bill, the very day on which the House re-assembles should have been chosen. I do not pretend to interpret the motives for these manœuvres; but they are certainly very extraordinary. I do not desire to go into the merits of this Bill—if I did, you would very properly rule me out of Order—but there is a clause in this Bill, and there is an Amendment on the Paper in reference to the Bill, in which the Irish Members are very much interested. I certainly do not think that we have been treated fairly, or candidly, first of all, in the proposition that was made to postpone the Bill until to-night, and now in the proposition to postpone it until the day after the holidays, a day on which it will be utterly impossible for my hon. Colleagues to be here to take part in the discussion, which concerns them very seriously. I do not mean to suggest that to-day was fixed with the idea that most of my hon. Friends would have returned to Ireland, or that the Motion now under consideration was also made with the idea that many of them would not have returned from Ireland. I certainly do not see why we should not go on with the Bill to-night; and if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) refuses to go on with it now, I beg to move that instead of the 3rd of May, Friday, the 20th of August, be selected for the resumption of the Committee stage.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Monday, the 3rd day of May next," in order to insert the words "Friday, the 20th day of Augustnext,"—(Mr. Parnell,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Monday, the 3rd day of May next,' stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I have, on more than one occasion lately, heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) insinuations as to my motives in dealing with this question. Well, Sir, I leave the hon. Member and his insinuations on one side, and will merely say that a private Member is bound, when he is in charge of a Bill, to take every opportunity that presents itself of bringing his Bill forward. That has been the only reason which has led me to place the Bill down,

  145
  as the hon. Member has said, on two or three occasions. On those occasions, as on this, we have not been able to reach the Bill before a very considerable number of Members have been obliged to leave the House. To-night we have had a long and protracted discussion upon the Crofters Bill; and about half-an-hour ago it seemed to me that the hour was so late that I could hardly expect hon. Members to devote any considerable time to the discussion of the measure. Those hon. Gentlemen who are generally supposed to know what the wishes of Members of the House are told me it was too late to hope for any discussion of this question, and I at once sent to the hon. Member who, I believe, represents hon. Members below the Gangway, to say that the hour was too late, and I should not bring the Bill on. I gave him as early a notice of my intention as I gave anybody else. I decided to postpone the Bill solely in the belief that hon. Members were exhausted by the previous discussion, and that it was unreasonable to ask them to enter upon the consideration of a Bill of this kind. On my telling them that it was not my intention to bring on the Bill a number of Friends of mine left the House. Under the circumstances, I have done what I have done before, I have put it down for the first available day. It is the first time I have heard in this House that hon. Members are not expected to be present on all the days on which the House professes to meet. As I have done before, I wish to show now that I, as a private Member in charge of a Bill, am endeavouring to the best of my ability to bring that Bill before the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I cannot possibly see any reason why we should not proceed with, the Bill now. We have waited here all this evening solely for the purpose of going on with the Bill. We have, of course, taken part in the divisions with the Scotch Members, endeavouring, so far as we could, to improve the Bill brought in on the Crofter Question; but our main reason for staying here to-night was that we are opposed to the Bill of which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) has charge, Now, Sir, I have no desire whatever to cast any imputations on the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet is anxious
  146
  to carry the Bill, and to carry it in the form which he thinks is most for the interest of his Party. He finds here tonight a considerable number of Irish Members ready to take part in the discussion of that portion of the Bill which concerns them. Perhaps he finds a fewer number of Members of his own Party present, and, accordingly, the right hon. Baronet proposes to defer the Bill to a time when the Irish Members cannot be here. It is all very well to say hon. Members are expected to be here on every day that the House sits. That, of course, is the theory; but there are days when it is convenient for hon. Members of one section of the House to be absent, and there are days when it is convenient for hon. Members of another section of the House to stay away. I put it to the fairness and justice of the House whether, when we have come to the Irish portion of the Bill, it is right for the right hon. Baronet to postpone the Bill from the night when there is a large attendance of Irish Members to a day when there must be a small attendance of such Members? It is contrary to all the good faith and fair dealing which hon. Members of different sections of the House must observe towards each other if the Business is to proceed smoothly. The right hon. Baronet has got his opportunity. He professes to be extremely anxious that this Bill should go forward, and his excuse for putting it down for the 3rd of May is that it is the duty of a private Member in charge of a Bill to press the Bill forward as best he can. Then let him press it forward now. I ask hon. Members on all sides of the House to support us in our attempt to defeat what my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) was perfectly justified in calling the manœuvring in connection with this Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to Order. Is it right, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to apply the term "manœuvring" to the action of another hon. Member of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The word "manœuvring" is certainly not out of Order; but it would be out of Order to impute to an hon. Member any unfair motive.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I attribute no unfair motive. I impute to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) a motive he has, in common with every strong Party man, of putting for-

  147
  ward a Bill in such a manner as would please himself, and would be hostile to those against it; and I say, in that sense, he is manœuvring most skilfully. Now, what are the two proposals before the House? The right hon. Baronet has his opportunity of hurrying forward the Bill by proceeding with it now; but he prefers to postpone it to a day which will be most inconvenient to those hon. Members who are most deeply interested. I think that, under these circumstances, we are entitled to ask the House to postpone the Bill until the 20th of August, when we may have a better chance of considering the measure.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I cannot help sympathizing, to a certain extent, with hon. Gentlemen from Ireland in their desire to proceed with the discussion of this Bill, in which they are so much interested, to-night; but I think that we, who are not so interested as they are, and who have been working all night long, ought to be now relieved from further attendance. No one can really think the right hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) is guilty of any unworthy motive. But I may venture to suggest, as a compromise, that he should postpone the Bill until Thursday, May 6. If it is put forward to the 6th, probably hon. Members from Ireland will be in their places by that time, and will be able to take part in the discussion.
  MR. DILLON: I regret to say that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will not meet our objection. Our position is a simple one. We might have blocked this Bill; but we did not wish to do so. We allowed it to come on, in the hope that the right hon. Baronet would meet us in regard to the time when it should be taken. It affects Ireland very largely, and we are surely entitled to a fair opportunity of discussing it. Now, Sir, observe what our position is. Many of us would have been able to have gone to Ireland on Saturday but for this Bill being down for tonight, and we have accordingly been kept in town waiting for it for three days. Well, we do not object to that; but now we are asked to come back here again, in order to discuss this Bill, a week before there is any other Irish
  148
  Business, or any necessity for us to come back. We have no other Business to call us here, and yet this Bill is put down. I do not wish to impute unworthy motive to the right hon. Baronet; but I do not know why he should make such a Motion as this, unless it is to get this Bill through. Of course, it may be a very worthy motive for the right hon. Baronet to desire, by any means whatever, to get his Bill through; but I only wish to point out that he is treating the Irish Members very unfairly in the matter. I would point out to him also that even the Government, when we have been opposing them very bitterly upon questions like the Irish Estimates, have endeavoured to meet our reasonable convenience. If any Member of the Irish Party said that it would be inconvenient to the Irish Party to take the Irish Estimates on any particular night, the Government have always been willing to put them down for some other day. I fail to see why it should be fair or reasonable for a private Member in this House to persue a course which, although he has an interest in the Bill, and however anxious he may be to get it through, is unfair to one class of Members, and is more arbitrary than the course pursued on similar occasions by the Government.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I have no right to speak again; but if the House will allow me I wish to say, after what has fallen from the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley), I shall be glad to put the Bill down for the Thursday or the Monday following the day on which the House reassembles.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I allowed the Question to be negatived, in order to fulfil the understanding that I had with hon. Members; and I will now move to insert "the 10th of May."
  MR. PARNELL: It ought to have been obvious to the right hon. Baronet—
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the right hon. Baronet can only be inserted in the event of the proposition which I have now to put being negatived.
  Question put, "That the words 'Friday, the 20th day of August next,' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 77: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 86.)
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Committee deferred till Friday 20th August.

MOTIONS.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Charles Acland, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Dudley, Stourbridge, and Kingswinford Tramways; Great Grimsby Street Tramways (Cleethorpes Extension); Halifax and District Tramways; Jarrow and Hebburn and District Tramways; and North Staffordshire Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Acland and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 195.]

  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Charles Acland, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Chertsey Gas, Loughborough Gas, Melksham Gas, Menai Bridge Gas, and Pocklington Gas, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Acland and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 196.]

  POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEITH) BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to confirm an Order of the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of "The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862," relating to the Burgh of Leith, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 197.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday 3rd May.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock till Monday 3rd May.