Sitting of 1 May 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Preferential Payment of Wages* [234].
First Reading—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment* [233].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government* [213]; Local Government (No. 2)* [214]; Local Government (Poor Law)* [215]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 3)* [217]; Local Government (Poor Law) (No. 5)* [219]; Pier and Harbour* [221]; Tramways (No. 1)* [222].

MOTION.

  PREFERENTIAL PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Randell, Bill to provide for the Preferential Payment of Wages in Bankruptcy and other cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Randell, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Burt, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. D. A. Thomas, and Mr. Thomas Ellis.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 234.]

QUESTIONS.

  THE SALT TRADE—THE RIVER WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL.
  MR. BRUNNERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the Trust of the River Weaver, the largest inland navigation in the Kingdom, is a self-elected body; that its income is derived almost entirely from the salt trade; that its surplus funds have for more than 160 years been used to relieve the county rate; that the salt trade has in this way, and during that time, been taxed to the extent of more than
  1020
  £2,000,000 sterling; that the salt trade is, and has long been, in a deplorably depressed condition; that the sources of salt production have of late years been rapidly developed, and bear no corresponding tax for the benefit of any Public Authority, whilst they have greatly diminished the demand for Cheshire salt; that the salt manufacturers of Cheshire have since 1866 been taxed, in common with other ratepayers of the county, under the Cattle Plague Act; that the cost to the county of this Act is, for instalment of loan and interest, £14,227 15 s. per annum; that this loan will be paid off in 1896; that under a recent Act the Trustees of the River Weaver contribute £15,000 a-year to the County Fund; and that the constitution of the Weaver Trust has been repeatedly condemned by the Board of Trade, on the ground that it imposed a tax upon trade; and, whether he is prepared to recommend, for the management of the River Weaver, the constitution of a public Trust resembling the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and that the payment from the Trust to the County Fund should cease at the date of the last payment on account of the Cattle Plague Loan in 1896, or at an earlier date?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The history of the Weaver Trust is contained in a Report presented in 1872 by the Board of Trade on the Weaver Navigation Bill, then before Parliament. The Board of Trade have no power to alter the management of this or any other River in the Kingdom; and any proposal for a reconstitution of the Trust must come from those interested. Any such proposal would receive the best consideration of the Department.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ALLOW ANCES TO SURVEYORS.
  MR. TUITEasked the Postmaster General, Whether surveyors and assistant surveyors in the service of the Post Office in Ireland are allowed at the rate of 20 s. and 15 s. respectively per day for every day during which they are absent from their respective headquarters; whether, in addition, they are also allowed the cost of first-class locomotion from place to place; if it can be stated upon what grounds this per diem allow-

  1021
  ance has been fixed; whether surveyors and assistant surveyors are generally absent on an average of 10 months in the year from their headquarters; and, whether any check exists as to the number of occasions they shall visit, or the length of time they shall remain in any particular place, within their respective districts, if such be optional with themselves?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied)said: The allowances to surveyors and assistant surveyors when absent from their headquarters are as stated in the Question, having been so fixed in order to cover the cost of subsistence. These officers, when travelling by railway in the discharge of their official duties, travel first-class. From the very nature of their employment a certain discretion must be left to them as to occasion and duration of their visits to the offices under their control; but a close check is kept on their movements, and in their diaries, which are sent up for inspection at short intervals, they have to account for every moment of their time. I may add that upon the vigilance, and—if I may use such a word—the ubiquitousness, of the surveyors and their assistants, the well-working of the Post Office largely depends; and the policy of the Department has been to keep them at their headquarters, not, as the hon. Member would seem to suppose, as much, but as little, as possible.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANI MALS—LONDON CAB HORSES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, If the attention of the Board has been directed to the evidence reported to have been given at Wandsworth Police Court, on the 25th ultimo, by Mr. Humphreys, described as one of the Inspectors under the Metropolitan Board, in a case in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals prosecuted, that it was not cruelty to work a horse with chronic navicular disease in a four-wheeled cab, and to his statement, when the learned magistrate took a contrary view and convicted the prisoner, that half the cab
  1022
  horses in London were in that condition, what duties Mr. Humphreys is employed by the Board to discharge; and, on what authority he made the allegation in question?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON, in reply, said, that Mr. Humphreys was one of the Veterinary Inspectors appointed by the Metropolitan Board under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, his duties being to report on all cases of diseased animals which were brought under his notice. All the Inspectors appointed under the Act were properly qualified veterinary surgeons, who also carried on business on their own account. Mr. Humphreys appeared at the Wandsworth Police Court as a witness on behalf of a cab-owner, whose horses were under his professional care, and gave evidence, not as representing the Board, but in his individual capacity as a veterinary surgeon. In justice to Mr. Humphreys, it must be stated that he denied having made the direct statement as reported.

  TRUCK ACTS—BREACHES OF THE ACT IN BRISTOL.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether breaches of the Truck Acts in the Bristol district have been recently reported to the Local Inspector of Factories; and, whether any, and what, proceedings have been taken by the Inspector to enforce the law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; the fact is as stated. The Local Inspector has been instructed to make a full investigation, and, if possible, to obtain statements, which could be verified on oath, in the cases which have been
  reported to him.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE JURY SYSTEM—WICKLOW ASSIZES.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the Catholic population of Wicklow County stands to the Protestant in the relation of four to one; whether it is true, as reported in the papers, that in the trial of prisoners on capital charges at the late Assizes in Wicklow the juries were exclusively Protestant, and can he

  1023
  say how this arose; whether it is the fact that Wicklow County is exceptionally free from crime; and, whether in future the practice of bringing criminals from other counties for trial in Wicklow will be discontinued?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The reply to the first and third paragraphs of the Question is in the affirmative. I am afraid I have nothing to add to my previous answer on the subject of paragraph 2. With regard to the last paragraph, the Attorney General for Ireland will, of course, continue to exercise the discretion vested in him by Statute.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the result of these trials has not been that two men have gone to the scaffold protesting their innocence, and leaving written declarations of their innocence behind them, these men having been removed from the County Kerry to be tried by this jury so constituted in the County Wicklow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite apprehend the object of the hon. Member's Question. Perhaps he will put it on the Notice Paper. I do not know whether the Question implies that the fact that these men did not confess their guilt had any connection whatever with the removal of their trial.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: May I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen a report of the proceedings at the Coroner's inquest in this case, at which the High Sheriff, the Deputy Sheriff, and the Governor of the gaol gave testimony to these men's protestations of innocence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I have not read that.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the War Office to utilise the services of Army Medical Officers on the retired list; whether such officers, when re-employed, will receive the same pay, allowances, and military status as other officers of their rank and standing; and, whether their additional service will count for increased pension when compulsorily retired by age, or what advantages will they derive?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Retired medical officers will be employed from time to time as their services become necessary. When so re-employed their remuneration is limited by the Royal Warrant to the sum of £150 a-year beyond their retired pay, and their service does not count towards increase of retired pay. I may add that this re-employment during peace is entirely at the option of the retired officers. If a retired officer be called out for service in a time of national emergency, the conditions of employment would be altogether different.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS—THE RETURN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state what is the cause of the delay in laying the Return of Lunatic Asylums, ordered on the 19th of August last, upon the Table.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): This Return is now almost completed, and will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days. The Return is a heavy one, and such delay as there has been is inseparable from the labour involved.

  ADMIRALTY—DEVONPORT DOCK YARD—FIRE DUTY MEN.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the number of men engaged on fire duty at the Devonport Dockyard is 24, although only 10 men are on duty at one and the same time; whether these men are on the same footing as regards accommodation, hours of duty, and pay, as the men employed on the same duty in other Dockyards; and, if not, why not; whether, although the sum of £170 was some time since granted for the purpose of improved sleeping accommodation for the men, no alteration has been made for several years past; whether the order for reducing the men's pay stated that the reduced pay was to commence "when the additional accommodation is complete;" whether their pay was, in fact, reduced by order of the Admiral Superintendent, from the date of the Order in February last; whether, under these circumstances, the men are entitled to

  1025
  their former rate of pay until the additional accommodation is ready for them; whether he is aware that the extra weekly duty, for which the men are now paid only 7s., amounts to 120 hours per week (57 by day and 63 by night), during which time they are confined within the gates, with no place except one sleeping room to cook and eat their meals in, with no opportunity of attending a place of worship or enjoying any recreation, and that they can only communicate during that time with their wives and families in the presence of the policeman on duty at the gates; and, whether, under all the above circumstances, he will consider the possibility of granting an increase of pay to these men?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I do not propose answering in detail the eight Questions now put, as I answered nine similar Questions last week. I will confine myself to saying that the circumstances of the case have been thoroughly gone into; and that I am satisfied that the pay given is fair and equitable, and that all consideration is paid to the convenience of the men.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to state that I am not at all satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord. I shall take the liberty of repeating the Question; and if I do not get an answer to-day I shall repeat it every day till I do.
  [No reply]
  MR. CONYBEAREgave Notice that he would repeat the Question on the following day and every day till he could get an answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  INDIA—THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What has been the result of the special inducements to retire offered to the officers in the blocked years of the Indian Telegraph Service; whether such inducements have had the desired effect; and, if, not, what is the cause of failure; whether it is the fact that promotions in the Telegraph Service are now made only twice a-year; whether the effect of this arrangement is to inflict a loss of, perhaps, several months' pay and promotion in the case of those who are moved up into vacancies
  1026
  in the intervals between the biennial promotion days; and, whether such a Rule is in force in any other branch of the Public Service?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The first period at which retirement might have taken place was March 31. No intimation as to the result has yet been received. Permanent promotions are now only made twice a-year, but acting promotions are made as vacancies occur. The full pay of the higher rank is not attained until the permanent appointment is made. Meantime, an acting allowance is received. No such Rule is in force in other Departments of the Public Service.

  INDIA—THE NIZAM OF HYDERABAD— CLAIM OF SIR HORACE RUMBOLD, BRITISH MINISTER AT THE HAGUE.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the claim for 11 lacks of rupees submitted to the Nizam's Government by Sir Horace Rumbold, British Minister at the Hague, and which has been settled by the payment to him of three lacks, is the same claim as that referred to in the following extract from the Hyderabad Report for 1294, Fasli (1884–5):—
  "The usurious interest charged by the houses of Rumbold, Palmer, and Co., and Poorunmull and others is well known, and there is little doubt that all such creditors of the State in the old days were paid over and over again. A claim was put forward some years ago by the heirs of Sir William Rumbold, and revived from time to time, but on its last appearance it was rejected under the advice of the Government of India;
  and, whether this claim was settled with the knowledge and under the advice of the Resident, whose guest Sir Horace Rumbold was last winter, when he went to Hyderabad, armed with letters from Lord Lytton and other influential persons, as stated in the Indian papers; if so, upon what grounds the Resident advised the admission of a claim which had been rejected a few years before "under the advice of the Government of India?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): I must refer the hon. Member to my answer to his Question on April 9, when I stated that the Secretary of State had no official information on this subject.

  1027
  Both the Secretary of State and the Viceroy expressly refused to interfere in the matter of this claim.

  IRELAND—MEETING OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE AT NEWTOWNARDS.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen a statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at a meeting of the National League on the 24th ultimo, that on the occasion of a visit recently paid by him to the town of Newtownards for the purpose of addressing a meeting, threats were used by the agents of the landlord and the local police officer to deter people from allowing him to speak on their premises, and accusing the Lord Lieutenant of personally using the machinery and the police of the county to terrify his own tenants on that occasion; whether there are any grounds for this statement and accusation; whether the meeting in question was, in fact, held; and, whether he can give the House any particulars concerning it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): My attention has been called to the newspaper reports of the statement and accusation attributed to the hon. Member for East Mayo. The local constabulary authorities report that there was no ground whatever for making either one or the other; there was no interference by any landlord or his agent in the matter, neither did the police attempt to prevent the meeting, nor, indeed, were they aware of the intention to hold it until the very last moment. It appears that the hon. Member referred to, accompanied by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) and another person, arrived at Newtownards at about 7 o'clock in the evening. The proprietress of the hotel refused to allow them to hold a meeting at her premises. They then proceeded to a draper's yard, and held what the police describe as a "hole and corner meeting." The meeting was very small, consisting of about 45 or 50 persons, and only about one-half of these had any connection with land, the remainder being townspeople.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked, whether any policeman had gone to the person who owned the
  1028
  hotel before the use of the premises for the holding of a meeting was refused; and, whether any policeman had attended in the hotel yard?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had not mentioned the hotel yard. He had said the meeting was held in a draper's yard.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he referred only to the hotel yard.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied that he did not know.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE "KILLEENA"—ISSUE OF LIME JUICE.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade have received information to the effect that no lime juice was served out to the crew of the British barque Killeena for 42 days, while on a passage from Buenos Ayres to Talcahuano, in the early part of last year; and, if so, why proceedings were not taken against the master?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have received information that no lime juice was served out on the voyage referred to. The Statute governing the serving out of lime juice applies to vessels navigating between the United Kingdom and any port out of the same. The Killeena, on the occasion referred to, was not engaged on such a voyage; therefore, no offence under statute was committed. I may add that no case of scurvy has been reported as having occurred during that voyage.

  VENEZUELA—APPOINTMENT OF A NEW PRESIDENT.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received official notification of the confirmation by Congress of the appointment of General Crespo as President of the United States of Venezuela; and, whether overtures have been made by the new President to the Government with a view to the resumption of diplomatic relations, enabling negotiations to be re-opened with regard to the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have not received any notification of the appointment of a new President of Venezuela, and no overtures have been made by him for the resumption of diplomatic relations.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)— DELIVERY OF LETTERS AT PILL, N. SOMERSET.
  MR. LLEWELLYNasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that at Pill, in North Somerset, certain persons living within 20 minutes' walk of the village post office are refused delivery of letters at their houses except on three days in each week; whether three mails reach Pill daily; and, whether, in view of the fact that many subjects of Her Majesty have their letters delivered to them as often as 13 times a-day, he will cause a delivery to be made at least once a-day to the persons mentioned above?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied)said: My hon. Friend, no doubt, refers to a matter respecting which he has already been in communication with the Department—namely, the question of increasing the frequency of the delivery afforded at Chapel Pill Farm from three to six days a week. The service three days a-week was offered to the occupant of the farm, and accepted by him as being all that the circumstances would warrant; and I am afraid that a further outlay would not be justified at present.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—MAPS OF YORK, AND OTHER COUNTY DISTRICTS.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will present to Parliament maps of the counties of York, Lancaster, Stafford, Warwick, and Monmouth, showing the distribution of urban and rural districts respectively, and their populations within the boundaries of those counties as they will stand for the first election to the County Councils?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I think that if any such maps are presented they should be furnished for all the counties of England and Wales. The expense
  1030
  of supplying these maps would obviously be considerable; and I should hardly feel justified in incurring it, unless I felt that there was a general desire on the part of the Members to obtain these maps. If I have reason to believe that such a general desire is felt, I shall be willing to consider the question.

  ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—RESPONSI BILITY FOR NUMBERS OF FORCE.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Who is the head permanent official responsible for submitting to the Secretary of State for War the number of men of whom in his responsible opinion the British Army should in the coming financial year consist; whether such official did submit such a formal opinion before the present Estimates were finally prepared; and, whether such opinion can be made public; and, if not, whether a distinct and authoritative record of such opinion is annually preserved at the War Office, as also a formal record of the fact whether such opinion was overruled or approved by the Secretary of State, in such manner as to afford conclusive evidence of the official to whom responsibility would attach in case the actual number should prove inadequate to the requirements of the country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No change has been made in this matter by the recent re-organization. The establishment of the Army for each financial year is submitted by the Commander-in-Chief to the Secretary of State. It is customary for the Commander-in-Chief to submit personally in the autumn of each year his views as to the establishment for the coming year, and subsequently the details are worked out and presented to the Secretary of State. No permanent Civil official has any responsibility whatever in this submission. As soon as this establishment has been submitted to the Secretary of State, it is considered by him with such advice as he may think necessary, and generally in consultation with his military advisers. But I wish to say most emphatically that for the action taken upon the establishment so submitted by the Commander-in-Chief the Secretary of State is solely and absolutely responsible. The opinions which I have described were submitted to me

  1031
  in the usual way, and at the usual time this year; and I consequently accept full and entire responsibility for the Estimates presented to Parliament. Official Minutes prepared for the assistance of a Minister are confidential Papers, and have never yet been made public. I should certainly not desire to commence that practice, and mainly on the ground that to do so would immediately minimize the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The official Papers show clearly what establishments were proposed to the Secretary of State upon the preparation of the Estimates.

  ROFTERS' HOLDINGS ACT, SECTION 13—"AVAILABLE LAND."
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in view of the Report of the Crofters' Commission that the causes which have prevented applications for enlargement of holdings under the Crofters' Holdings Act being lodged in any number are to be found in the Act itself, and particularly in Section 13, which fixes the scope of the words "available land," the Government intends to amend the Act so as to remove the restrictions imposed by the said section?
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that not a single holding has been enlarged since the Crofters' Act came into operation; and, whether, considering that the Royal Commission reported that the most pressing and the most important grievance of the crofters was inadequate holdings, and that the Crofters' Commission now reports that the clauses regarding increase of holdings are unworkable under present circumstances, the Government intend to introduce a measure to remedy the worst grievance that the crofters suffer from.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Government do not intend to bring in a measure to amend the Crofters' Act.
  DR. CLARKasked for an answer to the former part of his Question.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I answer in the affirmative.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS ACT—AD VANCES FOR EMIGRATION.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Under Secretary of State for the
  1032
  Colonies, If he will be good enough to inform the House what are the terms and conditions under which the Government propose to advance £10,000 for the emigration of crofters, both as regards the advances, the security, and the repayment; whether there are any Papers on the subject which he can include in the Return, recently ordered on the subject of colonization; whether any, and what, Report has been obtained upon the suitability of the land on which it is proposed to settle them; where the land is; and what part of the work and expense of the matter will be performed by the Canadian Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, he understood that the Lord Advocate would answer this Question.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Government are prepared to advance up to £10,000 at once on further sums being raised by private subscription. The amount thus obtained will be administered by a Board representing the Imperial Government, the Canadian Government, the subscribers, and the principal Canadian Land Companies. The Board will advance £120 to crofters' families emigrating, repayable in 12 years in eight equal annual instalments of £20 17 s. 8d., commencing in the fifth year, in full of principal and interest. The advance will be secured by a mortgage on the 160 acres to be granted to each family, and by a lien on their chattels. There are Papers which can be given, but it will not be convenient to give them in the Return already ordered. Suitable land will be selected by the Board. The Dominion Government will give free grants, and the settlers will have the advantage of the experience and co-operation of the Dominion Government land agents.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, whether it was in contemplation to exempt emigrants going to other parts of our Colonies than Canada; and whether the crofters would be compelled to go against their will?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: As regards the latter part of the Question, it is unnecessary to answer the hon. Member. As regards the first part, I

  1033
  will be obliged by him giving Notice of it.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, they had been so compelled before.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked, whether the powers described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the transaction on the part of the Government, would be exercised under any existing statute, or whether legislation would be necessary?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I do not think that any legislation will be necessary at present; but an Estimate, of course, will have to be laid before the House.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, whether the benefits of the emigration scheme would be entirely confined to crofters?
  MR. J. H. A MACDONALDasked for Notice of the Question.
  MR. HUNTERasked, to what part of Canada it was intended that the emigration should take place?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDasked for Notice of this Question also.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked, in reference to the voting of money by this House, whether the Government could hold a lien over the chattels of the emigrants in Canada without further statutory powers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, there would be legislation in Canada upon the subject.
  MR. KIMBERasked, whether the Government expected that a sum of £120 would be sufficient to take the emigrants out, build a house, and—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, whether this was conditional on private subscriptions being raised?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must ask hon. Members to be so good as to wait until the statement is made which will accompany the Vote on which the Government will ask for the power to make those advances. It is impossible for us to give any further information at present.
  Susequently,
  MR. HUNTERasked, Whether the details of the scheme of emigration for
  1034
  crofters would be laid before the House in good time for consideration before the Vote on the subject was taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay a statement on the Table, so that the House would have a full opportunity of discussing the subject before the Vote was taken?

  FISHING GROUNDS OFF THE ESSEX COAST—REPORT OF THE INQUIRY.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will now state what steps he proposes to take with reference to the rubbish thrown on to the fishing grounds off the Essex Coast?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Report is now in the hands of the printers; and as soon as it is printed the subject will receive my careful consideration.

  ADMIRALTY—THE SMACK "VESTA"— COMPENSATION.
  MAJOR RASCHasked The First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the owners of the smack Vesta, of Burnham, run down by one of Her Majesty's ships off the Nore, will receive compensation?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The only collision known of in this locality was between the dredger Alert and one of Her Majesty's ships, and it occurred on the 27th ultimo. The case is under consideration.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL POX AT SHEFFIELD.
  MR. PICTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether any Departmental or other Official Inquiry has been made into the epidemic of small pox in Sheffield; if so, what has been the nature of that inquiry, and, particularly, whether public notice has been given that anyone who had evidence to give would be heard; whether the Report of such inquiry has been received, or when it is likely to be completed; and, whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): An exhaustive inquiry into the circum-

  1035
  stances of the epidemic of small pox at Sheffield by one of the Board's Medical Inspectors is still in progress. The object of the inquiry has been to ascertain the conditions under which the epidemic arose and spread, and especially how far vaccination, and want of vaccination, have been concerned with the prevalence of the disease. No formal inquiry for the taking of evidence has been held; but at the Inspector's instance a systematic inquiry by the Local Authorities has been made from house to house, and the Inspector has been continuously in Sheffield obtaining information on the subject. A provisional Report has been submitted. The analysis of the voluminous Returns prepared locally is now being proceeded with; and as soon as this is completed the final Report will be at once prepared and laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked, whether the epidemic had been so far suppressed that the town could be said to be clear of small pox?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was so.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—COMPOUND HOUSE HOLDERS—LICENSING CLAUSES—COMPENSATION.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can give to the House an approximate estimate of the number of electors under the County Government Bill whose rates will be paid by their landlords; and, whether, in view of the importance of carrying out the principle that direct taxation should accompany direct representation in the administration of the rates, he will consider the expediency of limiting the operation of the compounding Acts to those localities where they are already in force, and to rents which are payable weekly or monthly?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the occupiers who are usually known as compound householders. I have no information as to the number of such occupiers in England and Wales; and I cannot, therefore, give to the House any approximate estimate of the number of compound householders who will be
  1036
  entitled to vote in elections under the Local Government Bill. There is no intention on the part of the Government, in connection with the Bill, to propose any alteration in the existing compounding Acts.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—COUNTY POLICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the proposed alterations in the control of the County Police Establishments, he will ask the County Chief Constables to report their opinions on the relative advantages of the following methods of administration—namely, whether such control would be best entrusted to the Magistrates as nominees of the Crown; or to a Joint Committee of Magistrates and Elected Councillors; or to a Council of popularly elected Members; or to the Home Office; having special regard to the efficiency of the force, to economy of management, and to the suppression of crime; and, whether he will print such reports as a Parliamentary Paper?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The course suggested by my hon. Friend is not one which the Government deem it necessary or desirable to adopt.

  WAR OFFICE—BURSTING OF A WIRE GUN AT WOOLWICH.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the wire gun which burst at proof in Woolwich Arsenal last week was designed or manufactured in the Government Establishments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No, Sir. The wire gun in question was neither designed nor manufactured in a Government establishment. It was designed as an experiment by Mr. Longridge, the inventor, who submitted it for trial at the Royal Arsenal; and it was manufactured for him by a private firm.

  WAR OFFICE—ADDITION TO THE ESTABLISHMENT.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked the Secretary of State

  1037
  for War, When his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief made his demand for 11,000 men to be added to the Army; and, what action was taken upon it by him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): This matter was made perfectly plain in the evidence given by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief before the Select Committee. No demand whatever for an addition of 11,000 men to the Army has ever been submitted to me.

  VACCINATION OF INFANTS.
  MR. M'LARENasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the inquests held on the 5th of April and the 23rd of April on two babies who died from being vaccinated when six days and five days old respectively; whether, in the first case, the child was born in the Greenwich Union Infirmary, and was vaccinated in five places against the wish of its mother; whether the Coroner said there had been great want of discretion on someone's part; whether the jury desired the Coroner to make representations to the authorities, with a view to the prevention of similar cases in future; whether, in the second case, the child was born at Queen Charlotte's Hospital, and whether it is accurate, as stated at the inquest, that it is the common practice there to vaccinate babies within five days of their birth; whether, in this case, the mother was not consulted as to the time of the operation; whether the Coroner was accurate in stating—
  "That by the sanction of the Local Government Board it is the constant practice in workhouse infirmaries to vaccinate infants three or four days old;"
  and, whether he will do his utmost to put a stop to this practice, and will issue a recommendation to all Boards of Guardians that they should defer vaccination till a child is at least six months old?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My attention has been drawn to the two inquests referred to by the hon. Member. As regards the case of the child born in the Greenwich Infirmary, the verdict of the jury at the Coroner's inquest was not that the child died from
  1038
  being vaccinated when six days old, as stated in the Question, but from being accidentally suffocated while at the mother's breast. The child was vaccinated in five places, and there was no statement at the inquest that the mother objected to this vaccination. The child left the infirmary 13 days after the vaccination; and, according to the statement of the medical officer of the Guardians, was perfectly healthy at the time of the vaccination and at the time of leaving the infirmary. A postmortem examination, of which evidence was given at the inquest, showed, however, that the child had one lung in a state of collapse, probably from the time of birth, and had other congenital malformations; and the jury, having this evidence before them, added to their verdict a rider to the effect that the child was, in their opinion, in an exceptionally delicate state of health, and that its vaccination was much to be regretted. As I have already stated, however, the cause of death was accidental suffocation. As regards the case of the child born at Queen Charlotte's Hospital, it was vaccinated when five days old, as is the practice in that Hospital, unless the parent objects. In this case the mother was aware of the rule, and did not object. The child, when discharged from the Hospital, was certified by the physician to be in good health. The child died when just over a month old. The Coroner states that death was not due to the vaccination, but to injury to the vaccination sores, followed by inflammation, which was probably of an erysipelatous character. It is to be borne in mind that if children born in a workhouse are not vaccinated before their discharge, they commonly escape vaccination altogether; and the Local Government Board are advised that there is no medical reason against such early vaccination in the case of healthy children. The Vaccination Act of 1867 requires vaccination within three months after birth.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE LICENSING CLAUSES—REFUSAL OF A LICENCE BY THE CUMBERLAND MAGISTRATES.
  MR. CAINEasked the President of the Local Go-

  1039
  vernment Board, If his attention has been called to the judgment yesterday in the Court of Queen's Bench in respect of the appeal of a publican from the refusal of the Cumberland magistrates to renew his licence for reasons other than offences against the law; and, if in consequence, he intends to press the Compensation Clauses of the Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My attention has been called to the decision given by two of the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division. My hon. Friend is, of course, aware that the judgment was not given by a final Court of Appeal. I may say, however, that the proposals in connection with the Compensation Clauses of the Local Government Bill are based upon what we consider are the equitable claims of those who now possess licences; and we do not, therefore, propose to withdraw them from the consideration of the House in consequence of the decision referred to.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: On this question, might I ask the Solicitor General if he is prepared, in view of this decision, to make any modification of his statement of the law on the subject?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): No, Sir; I am not.

  INLAND REVENUE—LICENSED VICTUALLERS—PAYMENT OF SUCCESSION OR LEGACY DUTY.
  MR. CAINEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If Succession or Legacy Duty has ever been paid by any person who has succeeded to the business of Licensed Victualler, carried on in premises not belonging to the deceased or his successor, when the licence has been renewed to the successor?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Where a person succeeds to the business of a Licensed Victualler, carried on in premises not belonging to the deceased or his successor—that is, on leasehold premises—Probate Duty, and either Legacy or Succession Duty, is paid on the entire value of the deceased's interest in the lease and business taken as a whole.
  1040
  It is always assumed that the licence has been, or will be, renewed to the successor, unless the contrary proves to be the case.

  SOUTH AFRICA (BECHUANALAND)—METHUEN'S SETTLEMENT.
  MR. MALLOCKasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that Circulars have been issued by a Colonel Graham, inviting young men to go out to Methuen's Settlement, Bechuanaland; whether Methuen's Settlement is under Imperial protection; and, whether Colonel Graham's proposals have been made with the knowledge and sanction of the Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied)said: Her Majesty's Government are aware of the fact that such Circulars have been issued. The district in question is part of the British Possession of Bechuanaland. Colonel Graham's proposals were not made with the previous knowledge, and have not received the sanction, of Her Majesty's Government. All persons who have applied to the Colonial Office on the subject have received information to the following effect:—Nothing but a grant of the unoccupied land will be given by the Colonial Government; and the supply of the other things mentioned in the paragraph which has appeared in the Press—such as a house, 100 head of sheep, 25 head of cattle, two horses, arms, and all necessary agricultural implements—is promised to the emigrants by the promoters of the scheme, to whom you should apply for information, and not, as has been inferred, by Her Majesty's Government. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is not in a position to express any opinion as to the fertility of the land, or the prospects of those who may settle upon it.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE CART TAX.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, How the modification of the Cart Tax, which he has announced, will effect his previous Estimate of £63,500 as the produce of the impost in the Metropolis?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I anticipate that it will effect a reduction of £17,000 in my previous Estimate.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL, CLAUSE 21—BUILDING SOCIE TIES.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the provisions of Clause 21 (3) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill are intended to apply to Building Societies, such Societies having been decided, by the Special Commissioners in 1877, to be exempt from payment of tax under Shedule D?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): A. Building Society, if conducting its ordinary business, would not be brought within the operation of Clause 21 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. There is no special exemption from Income Tax in favour of Building Societies generally. The decision of the Special Commissioners to which the hon. Member refers was pronounced upon a particular case, and was to the effect that the particular Society appealing to them had no funds chargeable with Income Tax.

  ADMIRALTY—SUPERSESSION OF CAPTAIN LESTRANGE.
  MR. PROVANDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Captain Lestrange was recently superseded in H.M.S. Surprise; and, if so, can he state for what reason; whether he had previously been missing from his ship, and why was he so missing; and, is he the same officer who has since been appointed Commander of H.M.S. Boadicea; and, if so, for what reasons was he so appointed?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Commander Lestrange was superseded in July last in consequence of medical certificates reporting him temporarily incapacitated from service by illness. While at Marseilles he left his ship for a few days to visit Paris, and did not return. On inquiry, it was ascertained from medical reports that he was seriously ill, suffering from cerebral congestion, which was attributed to sun-
  1042
  stroke. The weight which is invariably attached to medical opinions in cases of this sort resulted in Commander Lestrange's supersession from his ship without trial by court-martial, which must otherwise have been ordered. He was reported in October last to be again fit for service. It is customary, when the Service admits of it, to allow captains to nominate their seconds in command, and the captain of the Boadicea applied for this officer.

  THE SLAVE DEALERS IN THE SOUDAN AND ZANZIBAR.
  MR. HOWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he sees any objection to the publication of any information in the possession of the Government referring to the recent operations of slave dealers in the Soudan and Zanzibar, and particularly Papers relating to the mutilation of children and the mortality consequent upon the same?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government are not in possession of any recent information of slave trading in the Soudan or in Zanzibar, or of the mutilation of children. A certain increase of the Slave Trade is reported from the East Coast of Africa. The annual Blue Book on the Slave Trade will shortly be presented, and will contain all the official information that has reached us on the subject.

  GOLD IN WALES.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can state approximately the amount of money spent by the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue Commissioners in the discovery and working of gold in Wales?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied)said: I have inquired what information can be given by the Office of Woods on this point. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his Question in a few days.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE LICENSING CLAUSES—COMPENSATION.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Local Go-

  1043
  vernment Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement that prices are now being offered for public-houses vastly above what they could have fetched in the market a short time since; and, whether he will make inquiry in several parts of the country as to the alleged rise in value of public-houses since the announcement of the Compensation Clauses of the Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My attention has not been drawn to the statement that prices are now being offered for public-houses vastly above what they would have fetched in the market a short time since. Indeed, I am told that it is not the case that it is so. I have no means of obtaining the information, however, as to the terms on which properties of this character change hands.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to prevent jobbery taking place in this matter similar to that which took place in regard to the Irish Church Act?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not propose to take any other steps than those I have already taken.

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  MR. HOWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any objection to laying upon the Table of the House any Papers and Despatches relating to the Italian Expedition to Abyssinia, and especially the Despatches about Mr. Portal's Mission to the Abyssinian King, which are referred to in the Italian Green Book just issued.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): There will be no objection to presenting Papers on the subject, if my hon. Friend will move for them.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE LICENSING CLAUSES—COMPENSATION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the two Resolutions passed by the Mile End Old Town Board of Guardians and Vestry, in the
  1044
  Tower Hamlets, protesting against the clauses of the Local Government Bill which provide for the payment of compensation to publicans whose houses may be closed; and, whether he will take these expressions of opinion into his consideration before the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill are reached in Committee? He wished to be allowed to state that the reason he had put the Question was that these two Boards represented the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): They used to do so; they do not now. Any expressions of opinion in reference to the Local Government Bill which I receive are considered by me. The hon. Member probably will not contend that the feeling expressed on the part of a Board of Guardians of any particular parish has any special weight in connection with a question such as that of the compensation proposed in the Local Government Bill.

  COMMON JURORS.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, considering the inconvenience, labour, cost, and annoyance caused to common jurors owing to the distances they have to travel, the interference with their occupation, and otherwise, he will entertain the advisability of affording some substantial remuneration to common jurors; and if he can inform the House on what ground the distinction now exists as between common jurors and special jurors with regard to remuneration, especially as the special juror is in a better position to meet the difficulties of the position?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)(who replied)said: I am well aware that common jurors have to incur considerable expense in travelling, and in other ways. At the same time, it is a very difficult question whether it is or is not desirable to give them substantial remuneration. The distinction between common jurors and special jurors rests upon Statute Law. I am not prepared to say that I will introduce a measure dealing with this question; but I recognize that it will have to be considered in the event of any large alteration of the existing law.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, Whether the allowances given to common jurors did not vary enormously in different parts of the country?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am not aware that that is the case. My impression is that common jurors always receive about the same figure.

  OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC TRUSTEE.
  MR. WARMINGTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government is now prepared to assent to the nomination of a Select Committee to consider and report upon the subject of the appointment of an Official or Public Trustee; and, whether the Government will consent to the Second Reading pro formâ of the Bills introduced upon the same subject by the Members for the Central Division of the Borough of Sheffield and the Western Division of Monmouthshire.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government have it in contemplation to bring in a Bill on the subject of Official Trustees; and the best plan will be to consider, when that Bill is introduced, whether it should be referred to a Select Committee or not.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1885—MARY LEBONE FREE LIBRARY ELECTION—THE POLICE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a Question of which he had given private Notice, Whether he was aware that the police, in Marylebone, had distributed voting papers from house to house for the election taking place that day, together with a paper printed in large type with the words "Vote, No, and distinctly defeat and settle the question." Was this part of the duties allotted the police by the Chief Commissioner?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, that he knew nothing of the facts put forward by the hon. Member. The hon. Member's Notice had only been placed in his hands as he entered the House. He, therefore, had had no time for inquiry. He had no knowledge of the imposition on the police of any such duty as the hon. Member had described.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. BURT (Morpeth),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, I cannot tell to-day when the Employers' Liability Bill will be taken; I am afraid it cannot be this week. The House is aware that there are two Bills before it which must be passed before the Whitsuntide Recess. They are the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill and the Bill for the registration of electors under the Local Government scheme. The Government propose to ask the House to consider these Bills on Thursday, so as to make their success absolutely certain. I am sure the House will assist us in forwarding Public Business that cannot possibly wait. The Employers' Liability Bill will not be taken on Thursday; but I hope to be able to ask the House to take the second reading before Whitsuntide.
  In reply to Mr. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped to be able to take the second reading of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill before the Whitsuntide Recess.

  COAL MINES, &c., REGULATION ACT—THE RHONDDA VALLEY COLLIERIES—TIMBERING REGULATIONS.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention had been called to the dispute and consequent strike in connection with one of the large collieries in the Rhondda Valley, in consequence of the employers refusing to supply them with suitable timber without a reduction of wages to meet the expenses thereof; and, whether such conduct was in accordance with the provisions of the Coal Mines, &c., Regulation Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I cannot give any authoritative opinion on the effect of the statute; but as I read the Act, the owner is bound not to allow the timbering of working places to be done by the workmen unless timber is provided at the places named in the Act; but the Act leaves the owners and workmen free to settle by agreement between

  1047
  themselves on what terms, as to wages and otherwise, the timber shall be conveyed to those places.

  CRIMINAL CASES (IRELAND)—IN CREASE OF SENTENCES ON APPEAL—IMPRISONMENT OF MR. BLANE, M.P.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question with reference to an answer he gave on Friday. It refers to the sentence passed on Mr. Blane, M.P. The Chief Secretary said it was originally four months with hard labour, but was extended to six months without hard labour. I have been informed that there is some mistake in this matter, and that hard labour was not included in the first sentence of four months.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As the hon. Baronet is, perhaps, aware, a Question was asked me yesterday on this subject by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: No. I was not aware.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And I then explained to the House that I was quoting from memory, and, as it turns out, accurately quoting, a Report which I happened to read that morning from the Sessional Crown Solicitor. I confess that even the further inquiry I have made on the subject has not entirely cleared up what ought to be a comparatively easy point to make clear; but what is undoubted is, that the case was argued before the County Court Judge by both sides as if the sentence had been a sentence of hard labour. There is doubt about that. Both the appellant's counsel and counsel for the prosecution assumed, on the hearing of the appeal, that the sentence of the Resident Magistrates was with hard labour.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: But was it so, without assuming?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is just the question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down on the Paper? They ought to have known, I should think.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Cannot we have the sentence itself? It is, of course, recorded.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, there is no difficulty in the case, if the House will give me time to get the facts of the case. At present there seems to be some difficulty, which I cannot reconcile, between the facts I have stated to the House and other facts.

THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1882—RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE).

  SCOTLAND—THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS—BREAKDOWN OF THE CROFTERS' ACT.
  DR. CLARKrose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the imminent danger to law and order in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in consequence of the complete breakdown of the Crofters' Act as a remedy for the Crofters' grievances, and the pressing necessity for remedial legislation.
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified—
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
  DR. CLARKsaid, he regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, owing to the manner in which he had answered the Questions put to him earlier in the evening, in reference to the Amendment of the Crofters' Act, had compelled him (Dr. Clark) to bring the matter before the House in the present manner. Hon. Members had now before them the Report of the Crofters' Commission, and it would be seen that one of the Schedules contained in that Report had not been filled up. There had not yet been one case of a single holding having been enlarged since the Crofters' Act came into operation. The right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had asked the Lord Advocate to inquire of the Crofters' Commission, whether this most important alteration of the provisions of the Crofters' Act had not been carried into effect. The Report of the Crofters Commission was laid before Parliament

  1049
  last week, and it would appear that although there had been some 300 or 400 applications for enlargements of holdings, there had not been an increase in a single case. The Commissioners said that, under the provisions of the Act, it was quite impossible for them to increase the holdings. He (Dr. Clark) maintained that that was a very serious matter, because the clause in reference to the increase of holdings was one of the clauses which was limited in its operation to a period of five years. Two years had already elapsed, and there had not been a single case of an increase of holding. That was the primary grievance of the Crofters; but there was a second grievance—namely, that of rack-renting. He thought the evidence given before the Commission established beyond the possibility of doubt that there was rack-renting in Scotland as well as in Ireland; but under the provisions of the Scotch Crofters' Act, crofters, no matter how rack-rented, who held holdings of less than £20 or £30 a-year under leases, were excluded from the benefits of the Act, although the Irish Land Act gave to all Irish leaseholders the benefits of that Act, and even if they held 99 years' leases. It was obvious that small crofters living in the crofter parishes most required this protection. The leaseholders were of two classes—first, those who were compelled to accept leases under a threat of eviction; and, secondly, those who were glad to accept leases in order to be protected in their holdings; but the class which required most protection was left altogether unprotected. Upon a large estate in his own county, 116 crofters had had a reduction of rent made by the Commission amounting to more than 50 per cent, and about 70 per cent had been taken off their arrears, and yet he found, from the newspapers of Friday last, that by the decision which had just been given by the Commission in the case of a large estate where the reduction of rent averaged 77 per cent, and the reduction of arrears about 83 per cent, the very class of men who required this protection were actually left entirely unprotected. In some cases, the rent had been reduced 50, 60, and even 80 per cent; whereas their neighbours who held under leases, although their holdings were in the same locality, were compelled to pay
  1050
  rack-rents, and were unable to obtain the benefits of the Act. That, however, although a great grievance, was not of so much importance as the question of the increased holdings. He frankly admitted that in the case of nine-tenths of the crofters, if they were to get their present holdings free, and owned the freehold of them, their condition would not be much improved. The one difficulty and the real pressing question in the Highlands was the increase of holdings, and he would refer the House to the facts of the case as established by the Royal Commission. It must be remembered that that Commission was composed of six Gentlemen, four of whom were landlords, the fifth the son of a landlord, and the sixth, a Professor of Gaelic, so that a Commission so constituted could not be supposed to have any especial leaning towards the grievances of the Highland crofters. The Report of the Commission was a most satisfactory one in every respect, and if the Government would only carry out the recommendations which the Commissioners had made, the Crofters would be satisfied and law and order would be observed. The Commissioners said—
  "The principal matter of dissatisfaction urged upon our notice in almost every instance was the restriction of the area of the holding. The fact was notorious, and was a matter of common observation."
  The Commissioners went on to give certain statistics, and he wished to call the attention, both of the late Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, to the condition of affairs as portrayed in the Report of the Commissioners. The Commissioners took four parishes which they said were fair samples of the rest in the Highlands. In the first place, they took a characteristic estate in Sutherland, the rental of which was £10,300 a-year. On that estate there were 10 shooting tenants who paid £3,800 a-year, and seven graziers who paid £5,810 a-year, or nearly £10,000 between them, leaving more than 300 crofters to pay £600 a-year, or about £2 each. Sir Arnold Kimball, the Chamberlain of the Duke of Sutherland, gave evidence before the Commissioners, from which it appeared that on the Duke of Sutherland's estates in Sutherland matters were even worse. On the

  1051
  whole of the estate there were 2,560 crofters; 592 paid a rent of £2 a-year and under; 254 paid £3 a-year; 399 £1 a-year; and 254 paid £5 a-year. Altogether, 2,300 out of the 2,560 paid a rental of £5 and under. In the year 1886 the Duke of Sutherland made a reduction of rent; but out of the 2,560 crofters on his estate there were only 4 who paid a rental of between £30 and £40 a-year. Therefore, so far as the County of Sutherland was concerned, the Crofters' Act was practically useless and would continue so, unless it was modified. There had been two or three disturbances in the Highlands, and he wished to say a word or two in regard to the condition of affairs in the disturbed districts, seeing that Her Majesty's Gunboats and Marines seemed to be the only remedy right hon. Gentlemen, who represented Scotland and were responsible for its government, could think of. It was not necessary to speak of emigration as a remedy, because the Government would not give the people the money that was necessary to emigrate with. There were already many men in prison, and several women, and unless something were done speedily they would have many more there. Nine-tenths of the people had been driven away from the more fertile portions of the country to the bleakest and most sterile land on the sea-shore, where, without adequate means, they were trying to make a living. The land was becoming poorer and poorer every year, and every year the people were becoming poorer and poorer also. There could be no wonder, therefore, that they had the pauperism which the Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke about the other day, when he informed the House that the poor rate in the Island of Lewis amounted to 11 s. 6d. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman added that if the crofters obtained what they desired, the poor rate, instead of being 11 s. 6d., would be 26 s. in the pound. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that the reason why the poor rates were high was because the crofters had been cleared off the land, and that large deer forests and grazing tracts had been made. Only let them go back to the land, with proper means of tilling it, and there would no longer be paupers, but they would be able to make a decent living, and the poor rate, instead of being 26 s. in the pound, would not be
  1052
  6d. There was another and a very important point. They had cleared the crofters off the land, and had converted the land itself into deer forests and grazing tracts. What was the condition of these grazing tracts? Why, that where 20 years ago the land would carry 6,000 or 8,000 sheep, it would not now carry 3,000. Why was that? It was because that which had been made valuable in the past by the labour of the crofters had now been replaced by heather, brackens, and rushes. They, therefore, had two conditions established—that the land had been converted into a waste, and that the people were in a state of misery and starvation. In the Island of Lewis there were 150 square miles of land, of which about one-fourth was occupied by crofters, and the average rent only amounted to about £3 a-year. One of the medical officers reported to the Crofters' Commission, that the people were in such a state of destitution that they could not obtain sufficient meal to enable them to make poultices when the Island was visited by a terrible epidemic of measles. The state of Lewis was dealt with by the Commission, who stated in their Report certain facts relating to the parish of Uig, where there certainly had been the great increase of population which the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for Scotland complained of. The population in 1831 was 3,040, and in 1881 it had only increased to 3,480. The gross rental was £5,000 a-year, of which the shooting and fishing tenants paid £1,200, the deer forests £1,120, and six graziers £1,000, leaving the 420 crofters, who were on the Valuation Roll, to pay about £1,500 a-year. The Commissioners gave this parish as a typical case, and according to their Report, that was the condition of things all over the Islands and Highlands. In four parishes, there were 3,200 families, including about 16,000 individuals; the rental of the four parishes was £30,000, and the crofters, 2,090 in number, paid of that sum about £7,000 a-year. That, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, was the condition of things all over the Islands. The Commissioners also gave certain facts in reference to Tiree, where there had been disturbances. The gross rental, according to the Valuation Roll, was £5,359 a-year; the factor and his

  1053
  brother, together with a third person, paid 35½ per cent of the entire rental, a dozen other men paid about 52 per cent, and the rest was paid by 222 crofters. There were 324 cotters or crofters who had been driven away from their crofts, who paid no rent at all and had no land. That was the condition of things in Tiree. The two principles for which he (Dr. Clark) contended were to increase the holdings, and to give proper protection for those who were at present rack-rented. What then ought to be done? As it seemed to him, the only thing to be done was to carry out the Report of the Royal Commission, and to give the Commissioners the power which they recommended should be given to the Sheriff—namely, the power of compulsorily increasing the holdings. At present the Act was unworkable. The crofters had been reduced to such a state of poverty by rack-renting, and by the imposing of restrictions upon their holdings, that they had no money, and the first condition for increasing their holdings was to see that they had a sufficient amount of money to enable them to stock them. Practically, they had knocked the poor crofter down, and then kicked him for falling. The principle of the Act was to increase the holdings, but the 13th clause prevented it. They were keeping the word of promise to the ear, and breaking it to the hope. The clause was put into the Act for the purpose of increasing holdings, and now, after the Act had been in force for two years, the Commissioners reported that they had been unable to do that, and would not be able to do it on account of the limitations and restrictions the Act contained. Therefore, what Parliament had to do was to amend the Act, so as to take in all the crofters; and, in the second place, to make the clause regarding the increase of holdings a reality and not a sham. He begged to move the Adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Dr. Clark.)
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he wished to say a word or two in support of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). The whole case, as he understood it, might be presented in a very few words indeed. He was afraid that his right
  1054
  hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate must admit that he brought this matter upon himself. He might have prevented it from being moved, if he had given a less curt reply to the Questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland). What had been the history of this question during the last Session of Parliament? When the House met at the beginning of the year, an Amendment was moved to the Address with regard to the disturbances in Lewis. A discussion took place in the House upon that Amendment, and speeches were made both by the Lord Advocate and by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said, and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow also said, that the powers of the Crofters' Commission as they at present existed were quite inadequate to deal with the great troubles that existed in Lewis. The difficulty in Lewis had reference to the grievance felt there in regard to the restricted area occupied by crofter holdings. The Chief Secretary for Ireland laid great stress on the question of over-population, and he said that the whole difficulty arose from the increase of population. The right hon. Gentleman did not, however, take into consideration that, so far as the population of Lewis was concerned, the crofters had not only increased, but they had had to live and subsist on a much smaller area of land than the population had to subsist on 30 or 40 years ago. The general conclusion come to by the House, after the discussion on the Amendment to the Address, was that, apart from the question of emigration and any powers that might be given to the Commission, such powers as that Body now possessed were quite inadequate to deal with the difficulty which had arisen in Lewis. Very naturally a question was asked as to what had become of the powers given to the Commissioners under the Crofters' Act for the extension of holdings. That subject was raised then, and also on a subsequent occasion. Eventually, a Question was put by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), as to whether the Government would agree to

  1055
  consult the Crofter Commission, and get a Report from them in regard to the causes which had rendered the provision for the extension of holdings comparatively inoperative. The Government assented to that request, and called on the Crofters' Commission to make a Report. They had done so, and it was issued to the House on Friday last. It was, therefore, only to be expected that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and his hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland, representing as they did large Crofter constituencies, should put to-day the questions which appeared on the Paper in their names. He must say that those Questions had met with a very scant reply from the Lord Advocate, who said in very curt language, that the Government had no intention whatever of legislating on the crofter question during the present Session. That was all he said. He (Mr. Buchanan) did not wish to say a word that would wound the feelings of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he was bound to say, that on recent occasions Members from Scotland had had some cause to complain of the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the habit of treating the Questions which his Colleagues in Scotland brought under his consideration in that House. He trusted that what had taken place that night would have some slight effect upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that in future he would adopt something more of the suaviter in modo in the replies he gave to the Questions addressed to him. But, altogether apart from that, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman might say at the present moment, it was almost impossible that the Government could go on through the present Session without proposing some kind of extension of the powers of the Commission under the Act. The Crofters' Commission would very shortly have to be sent to Lewis, and it was admitted on both sides, that the powers they possessed were quite inadequate to deal with the state of things that existed there. Therefore, if they were sent there, it was quite impossible for them to give any satisfaction to the people who were now in a state of discontent. Was it impossible to give to the Crofters' Commission—an important public authority
  1056
  —some extended powers which would enable them to do away, to a certain extent, with some of the discontent? They had been told to-night that in a particular district where the greatest disturbance had arisen, and where the greatest distress prevailed—namely, the district of Park, within comparatively recent times, 30 or 40 years ago, there were crofter settlements all over the district, and when it was turned into a deer forest, the crofters were lifted out of their own district and put down on other parts of the island near the sea margin or elsewhere further north. Surely what had been done in recent times by private individuals in lifting crofter settlements from one part of the island and putting them down on another might be done by a public authority. Was it not possible for the Government to devise some means to give the Crofter Commission authority to do what had been done in the past by private individuals—namely, to lift up the crofter settlement from the wretched places in which they were now situated, and put them down on other parts of the Island of Lewis, where they might, under a system of fair rents be able to earn a decent livelihood and maintain themselves in something like comfort. He must earnestly impress upon the Government the extreme gravity and importance of the question. If the Government persisted in turning a deaf ear to all the representations that were made to them by those who represented the Highlands in connection with the specific defects of the Act, it would be a most shortsighted policy, and it would be impossible to look forward to another winter in the Highland districts without the risk of very serious disturbances arising. He would earnestly impress upon the Government the necessity of turning their serious attention to the matter in order to see whether, by some means or other, it was not possible to give to the Crofters' Commission extended powers for giving more land to the crofters.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Mr. Speaker, I think it will only be courteous that I should intervene at this early stage of the debate—a debate of which I do not complain, although I must inform the House that, having had no intimation whatever that any such debate was to

  1057
  take place, I am not in a position to give an elaborate answer to all that has been said. However, having discussed this matter very fully, and having stated my views upon it at an earlier part of the Session, and seeing no reason to depart from those views, I shall confine myself to making a few observations to show the position which the Government take up on this matter. As to the remark that I have brought this debate upon myself, I must say that I was not aware that I had been thought discourteous, and that it is extremely undesirable when one has a distinct answer to give to a Question to do otherwise than give it in distinct terms. I hope that giving a distinct negative to a Question will not be considered an act of discourtesy.
  DR. CLARKsaid, the complaint was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had answered several Questions together in the briefest manner, and not noticed the various points raised in them.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I quite understand that; but the Questions to which the hon. Gentleman refers consisted of references to certain facts which were perfectly well known—namely, statements made by a past Commissioner, and evidence given recently, and the pith and marrow of the Questions were, whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to take any action in the way of bringing in a measure to amend the Crofters' Act, this year. I answered that directly with no intention whatever of slurring over the Question. I assumed that the matters mentioned' in the Questions were correct, because they were simply reproductions of what had already been placed before hon. Members of this House. If, however, I have appeared in any way to be discourteous, it was certainly not my intention, and I hope the hon. Member who has complained will kindly look at it, as he himself said towards the end of his speech, as showing that the exception proves the rule. Her Majesty's Government have had the matter now under their consideration time after time, and the views of hon. Members as regards the probability or hope of a particular measure doing any good in the Island of Lewis have also been considered. As an illustration of the suggestions that we have to consider seriously from
  1058
  time to time, I will take the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for the West Division of Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) in the latter part of his speech to-day, when he asked why, as in former days, private individuals had succeeded in removing people from certain places in which they were living, to other places where they now live, could not Her Majesty's Government do the same thing now, for the purpose of transferring some of the people of Lewis to places in the Island where they would be better off? Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider that question with the greatest possible earnestness, if the evidence before them and before the House did not prove as conclusively as any evidence could, that no such scheme, whether carried out by the Government or by private individuals, could possibly have the effect which my hon. and learned Friend expects to derive from it. How can it have such an effect, when we know perfectly well that the population of Lewis has increased so enormously during the last 50 years, and has quadrupled within the last century, and when the population is several times as large as it was when those who lived in Lewis, and loved Lewis, and the people there more than 100 years ago declared that the Island could not possibly support the people upon it? We have always maintained—and we have not been met by hon. Members opposite on the matter—that the conclusion which Sir John M'Neill gives in his Report 30 or 40 years ago, was a true conclusion—namely, that the crofters were not to be expected to make their livelihood and support themselves and their families out of the product of their labours as agricultural subjects. That statement has been persistently evaded by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in all the discussions which have taken place on this question; and what we complain of, and with reason, is this, that parts of the Report are brought up again and again, and quoted against our views, while no notice is taken of this statement, which is apparently set aside for the empirical and hopeless remedies which are frequently proposed in this House. A Motion has now been made for the purpose of inducing this House to enter upon an alteration of the legislation which was passed in 1886—only

  1059
  two years ago—on behalf of the crofters in the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. I leave my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour), who had charge of that Bill after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) ceased to be connected with the Government of that year, to say whether the grounds upon which he then was satisfied that what was done in the Bill, was all that could and ought to be done, were sufficient and good grounds or not, and to say what are the grounds upon which he has changed his opinion, if he has done so. When he and those who acted with him have done so, it will be time for us to deal with the reasons they may give. If, on the other hand, they can give no such reasons—and I believe they cannot give any substantial or real reasons—then we shall not require to meet anybody on that matter. There is a much more important matter which was fully discussed in 1886, and which is really the crux of this question. It is quite true that there have been very few applications indeed for the enlargement of holdings upon the part of the crofters, and it is also true that of the small number of applications which have been made there have been many which have not been competent under the Act of Parliament, because those who made them were unable to get the required number of five to concur with them in the application. More than one application has been made to obtain land in an Island at a distance of seven miles by sea from the Island in which the crofter making the application lived. But the most remarkable fact of all—and specially remarkable in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark)—is that there has not been one single application for the purpose of taking land from a deer forest, although that is the easiest application to make, for it is an application which cannot possibly be refused on the ground of rental or on the ground of there being a tenant, but which can only be refused if the land would be taken under such circumstances as would destroy the deer forest as a letting property. We were told all along, and certainly in 1886, that it was most important that the deer forests should be included, because if only the crofters
  1060
  could get a considerable tract of the country, it would be most valuable to them, and add to their means of subsistence. Upon that statement it is a most remarkable commentary, which will require a great amount of ingenuity to explain, that there has not been a single application made by the crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for the purpose of taking land from a deer forest. We said in 1886, and we were laughed at by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite—no doubt in a good humoured way—that the land of the deer forests was unsuitable for the purpose, and would be of no benefit, and that land which could only support one sheep on four and a half acres was not the land out of which people without substantial means and unable to take large tracts could get any advantage to themselves. But only a few minutes ago the hon. Member for Caithness said, "Let the crofters of Lewis go back to the Park"—which is a deer forest—"and till it." Not one single application has been made for any such purpose. I am quite aware that the Park has been used as a means of agitation, but I am not aware that the crofters considered or suggested for one moment that by taking such parts of the Park as they could occupy profitably to themselves they would benefit themselves or their neighbours in any way whatever. My answer to my hon. Friend is this—let some crofters put an application before the Commission in Lewis for the purpose of getting part of the Park so as to cultivate it, and then it will be seen whether there is any ground for complaint at all. It is a most remarkable fact that while a great deal was said about including the deer forests so as to give the crofters an opportunity of taking slices out of them for the purposes of obtaining a livelihood, with the aid of their existing crofts, not one single application has been made for this purpose. But it is not there the difficulty lies. The difficulty is, as it was pointed out in 1886, that if people are to be supported out of land by the extension of holdings, giving them a larger quantity of land to cultivate and to carry pasture upon, then these people must be in a position to stock and to use the land. What occurred in 1886? I remember that on that occasion the right hon.

  1061
  Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow referred in glowing terms to the great advantages which the Swiss peasantry had compared with the peasantry in the Island of Lewis. I took exception to what he then said, having myself had some experience of Switzerland as a young man. My opinion was that the Swiss peasantry had not so comfortable a life, that they made but little money, and that they did not even make a good subsistence. I then called attention to the question of additional land and to additional pasture, and what I then said I hold to now, knowing no reason to withdraw one word. I therefore cannot do better than road it. I said—
  "This Bill suggested nothing whatever to make it sure that when they had given this additional pasture land, those who took it would be able to make a beneficial use of it, and give a reasonable return to the person to whom it belonged."—(3 Hansard, [303] 144.)
  I gave my hon. Friends below the Gangway and the crofters the credit then for believing that they had no desire to take any land for which they were not to give a reasonable return to the proprietor. I also said—
  "In short, it made landlords take land from tenants with capital to give it to tenants who had no capital—land which was absolutely worthless to any man who did not possess capital."—(Ibid. 144.)
  I have never yet heard any answer to that—how a man without any capital who, upon your own showing, is upon the verge of starvation, is to be able to take additional land, and to stock and use it so as to be a profit to himself, and to enable him to give a reasonable return to the person who now has it let to people who have capital, and who are able to give that return. I continued—
  "That was to say, it was proposed by an Act of the Legislature to force upon the landlords of the Highlands an experiment which, unless capital were forthcoming for the working of it, must be an absolute failure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to give his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) any help whatever towards carrying out the objects of the Bill. The landlords had been willing to try the thing that was now proposed on the consideration that the land should be stocked, or that there should be the means of stocking it. This was the difficulty which had led to failure wherever the experiment had been tried. The Commissioners' Report in regard to Lady Gordon Cathcart's property brought out the fact that large farms, consisting of thousands of acres of land, in the best parts of the High-
  1062
  lands and Islands, had been given over to crofters—in some cases to agricultural crofters, and in others to fishing crofters—and the result from beginning to end had been a total and absolute failure. There had been inadequate stocking, the arrears of rent were very great—in some cases no rent had been paid at all; and, in spite of all stipulations, the old system of destructive sub-division had gone on. One of the Members of the Royal Commission had stated very distinctly these two things—first, that these common grazings formed the real obstacle to improvement; and, second, that capital was indispensable in pastoral farming, if a profit was to be made out of it at all. Although everything had been done that this Bill contemplated, the result was that arrears, which in 1883 amounted to £1,000, in 1884 were £2,000, and in 1885 had increased to £2,800; and during that period Lady Gordon Cathcart had given £1,128 for seed, of which not one-half had been repaid. This was a distinct and clear question which must be dealt with if they would come to a rational conclusion upon it. Either these people were withholding rents which they were able to pay, or, if they were not doing so, this Bill could not do any possible good. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) was on the horns of that dilemma."—(Ibid. 144–5.)
  I then proceeded to give another example. Now, those statements which I made in 1886 stand uncontradicted to this day. I have always asked, and asked in vain, how it is proposed that people who have got no means of using land are to be made bettor in their position by obtaining that land. I believe I shall still wait for an answer. It surely is not harshness towards this people—it is surely not injustice, and not dealing with them in an improper way, to say to them—"You cannot do what your neighbours have failed to do. If by any means you could raise money by which you shall be enabled to stock additional land, there is no doubt whatever that success might follow, if the land was productive." But to set people on land which cannot be made productive without a large outlay of capital, and which, even if made productive with that large outlay, can never be so productive, from the nature of the climate, as land would be in other parts of the country, at a time when the value of all agricultural produce is admittedly so low, and when all unquestionably have suffered from the climatic changes during the last few years, when the depression has been felt in every department of commerce, when as a result the annual value of land has been reduced 30 and 40 per cent as compared with two years ago, and when the re-

  1063
  ductions two years ago are larger than would have been made at the time the Commission was first proposed—to set people without means on land at such a time would not improve their position at all. The hon. Member for Caithness told us to-night what I have often said in this House before, and what was then received by hon. Members with expressions of incredulity, that in nine-tenths of the cases of the crofters in Lewis, if they were given their crofts absolutely free from any rent, their position would not be practically improved.
  DR. CLARK: And throughout the Highlands and Islands generally.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: My hon. Friend adds "Throughout the Highlands and Islands generally." It is interesting and instructive to get this statement from my hon. Friend now. We have maintained all along that these people are sunk in poverty, that their position does not enable them—from whatever cause you may choose to attribute it to, you must deal with facts as they are—to do more than they are doing now, and that the crofts which they hold are insufficient if they paid no rent at all for them, and got the land in perpetuity, for them to live on in comfort. But the proposal is that they should receive additional land in order that they may cultivate it. I think that a very great deal indeed might be said for that proposition if it could be carried out with any reasonable regard to the rights of other people. But how can a man who is at present so absolutely sunk in poverty be placed in a position of success, unless, indeed, some kind friend would come forward and provide the means? Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway believe this can be successful, and that it can be made to pay. In the case of any speculation which is known and believed to pay, you will find plenty of money in the market to carry it on. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) the other day that he was able to borrow money at £1 12 s. 6d. per annum on six months' Exchequer Bills. That is a state of things which is comparatively new in this country. If money is in that position—if these speculations can be made to pay—I am perfectly certain that if my hon. Friends went into the City and offered 2½ per cent for money to be advanced for such a pur-
  1064
  pose they would get the money tomorrow. But I am afraid when these gentlemen to whom they went made their inquiries and read the report of Sir John M'Neill, issued the other day, they would find that in dealing with such a country and climate and population, they never could make any such speculation a success. Is the matter to be dealt with upon every principle of common sense which rules men in their own affairs? Is Her Majesty's Government reasonable in coming to the distinct and definite conclusion that by endeavouring to maintain an excessive population in many parts of the Highlands and Islands you are bolstering up a tottering fabric, which must ultimately and inevitably fall? That is our opinion, and I hope hon. Gentlemen will give us credit for holding that opinion after careful and earnest consideration, and holding it with the deepest possible regret. Our view has always been—and we have not hesitated to state it in this House, and to state it in the face of much obloquy and misrepresentation of our motives—that without a considerable removal of the congested population of the Highlands to some other country where there would be an outcome for their industry, and where they would have some chance of success, there is no hope of relieving the state of things which exists in those congested parts of the Highlands. It is no doubt, true that many people in that part of the country have the greatest aversion to do that which many of us have to submit to in our own families. Many of us have to sacrifice our love of home, and leave our own shores, and seek our fortunes elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness, who brought forward this Motion, has never had reason to regret that he went abroad a good deal, and there are other hon. Members below the Gangway who, no doubt, have done the same with great success. No doubt, these poor people are attached to their glens, and cling to them with a love which it is very difficult for us to appreciate. I admire them for it. It is one of the best features in their character, but it is one of those features which, if it is allowed to take an exaggerated position in a man's mind and affections, does an injury, not only to his own personal interests, but to the community in which he lives. Surely we are not doing a cruel thing in taking such

  1065
  measures as we can to give these people in the Highlands an inducement to throw aside their dread and horror at leaving their native country and establishing themselves elsewhere—in places where they can form happy and prosperous communities. This has been done in other countries, and wherever it has been done efficiently and under good management, it has led to a feeling among the people that it is a wise and sensible thing to do. I can tell my hon. Friends that at the present moment there are a good number of families in the Islands of Scotland who are prepared to go and establish themselves elsewhere the moment a scheme has been devised which will enable them to do so with some reasonable chance of success, and with the prospect of obtaining a comfort which they were not able to secure at home. I begin to feel that my hon. Friends below the Gangway are leaning more and more towards this view of the case. The feeling of agitation is over. As long as there was really a feeling of agitation in the Highlands, any word uttered by hon. Members below the Gangway in favour of emigration would have brought them into great disfavour among those whom they represented. But that feeling is subsiding; and as to the danger to peace and order in the Highlands, I can assure this House that the views of the hon. Member for Caithness on that matter are absolutely groundless. Unless the agitator gets among them again—the agitator whose business it is to keep up excitement and endeavour to create breaches of the law—I am certain from the reports the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) has received, that there is no reason to fear any breach of the law at present. But will hon. Members go among these people and encourage them to take the course which we suggest they ought to take? This is an experiment which the Government are determined to carry out with the utmost rapidity. We hope to be able in the course of a year to remove some families who are willing to go, and to set them up in a distant country where they will meet people of their own blood and people of their own particular sentiments and associations. These people, I am certain, if once we can get them settled, will send home news which will induce hundreds and hundreds of others to
  1066
  follow their example. The moment you have a reasonable number of people leaving these crofts, you at once have land available for the purpose of aiding the others who remain behind. It is one of the wise provisions of the Act passed in 1886, that, in the event of any crofters moving from their crofts, these crofts are not to be appropriated into the general estate, but are to be used for the purpose of increasing the area of the existing holdings. I am certain that you cannot, by the schemes which have been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, really produce that which every honest man desires to produce—namely, a permanent and efficient relief to the crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from the difficulties in which they are at present involved. A mere empirical remedy will do no present good; a mere heroic Act, though it may give temporary relief, will not do any ultimate good. We believe still in the principles we have enunciated over and over again in this House, and we are glad to think that some of these principles are now gaining some sort of acceptance from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. We augur well from that, and if they will join us in that which we are prepared to do, great good may be effected, and the greatest possible blessing to the Highlands and Islands may be accomplished.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he entirely agreed with much that had been said by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). At the same time, he thought the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been more satisfactory if he had been a little more distinct in stating the proposals which the Government had in their mind for the relief of the population in the Highlands.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, his hon. and learned Friend was probably not in the House when, at an earlier period of the evening, it was announced that a full statement would be laid before the House in the form of an estimate on another day. He would have been perfectly ready to have entered more fully into the matter had the plan been properly digested.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that statement. He was

  1067
  glad that the Government intended to have the whole subject sifted. The sending of gunboats and marines might be necessary under some circumstances, but he thought they must look to other means for the settlement of the difficulty which existed in the Highlands. It would have been much more satisfactory if the hon. Member who moved (Dr. Clark) and the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Buchanan) who seconded the Motion for Adjournment of the House, had done a little more to show how a remedy could be found for the present condition of things by amending the Crofters' Act. They had not shown how any alteration of the Act could get rid of the difficulty pointed out by the Commission as the reason why the Crofters' Act had been inoperative. The hon. Member who made this Motion for adjournment had not suggested any remedy for the difficulty arising from inability to stock farms.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he had pointed out that the recommendations of the Royal Commission would have remedied that.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, that no one would say that the Report did not lay the greatest stress on emigration.
  DR. CLARKsaid, there were two recommendations made by the Royal Commission. One was to give holdings compulsorily, and he had said if that power was given it would be all they asked for.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he was pointing out that the House and the Government had not followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the most important was that of emigration, and it had not been acted upon. The reasons pointed out by the Commissioners made it very difficult, to his mind, to amend the Crofters' Act in the direction indicated, and he considered that the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were not enough to enable the House to get out of those difficulties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a very strong statement as to the Government taking means to assist emigration, and hon. Members would look forward with interest to the plan that he would propose, in the hope that it would be found to put an end to the difficulties experienced during the last three months.
  DR. R. MACDONALDsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) had pointed out that the hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Motion before the House, had given no explanation of the way in which the Act could be amended. They wanted more land for the crofters, which the Government would not give to the extent of an inch. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate bad given them many unanswerable arguments, and one of them was that there had been no application for any land; but he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he could give a single instance of a crofter getting an inch of land from a deer forest?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he had always assumed that when hon. Gentlemen in 1866 pressed that land for the deer forests should not be taken from the crofts, that in pressing this they had some practical end in view.
  DR. R. MACDONALDsaid, they certainly had a practical end in view. They wanted the migration of crofters from the congested districts into other parts; but the Act said that the land of the crofters was to be contiguous to and conterminous with the deer forests. But the owners took care to drive away not only crofters, but publicans. They would not have an hotel within five miles, and hon. Members knew that one had not long ago been shut up on that account. The moral of this was to allow the crofters to get more land wherever they could find it. The Commissioners recommended that from the congested districts the crofters should be migrated to places where there was room for them. The last Government did not give that power, however, and they were not allowed to remove any men from those districts. It was left for the present Government to break leases in Ireland; and, if that were so, why should not the large farms in the Highlands be broken down to afford more land for the crofters? The Royal Commissioners also recommended that harbours should be built, but that had not been done. Then there was the question of the school rates in the Highlands, which amounted to 6s. 8d. in the pound; and he asked if the Government could not have done something to relieve the people in that respect? The right hon.

  1069
  and learned Gentleman said there were very few applications for the increase of holdings. But there had been 310 applications, and he might tell the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the reason there were not more was that the crofters knew it was a hopeless case. They had, over and over again, pointed out that this was not a question of rent, but that it was a question of the want of land; and the Land Commissioners had told them that the principal point urged in almost every district was the restriction of the area of the holdings. The Commissioners said—
  "That in most cases a considerable degree of indulgence, almost amounting to benevolence, might be discovered in the case of small holdings;"
  they believed
  "that the grievance of increased rents had been urged in many instances, but with much less force and earnestness than that of the restriction of areas."
  The average reduction of rent made by the Commissioners was 31 per cent; and, after that, would anyone say that the Highlanders, who had not grumbled for so many years, were not a long-suffering people? Were they not deserving of having their grievance with regard to area redressed? The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said that hon. Members on those Benches would not help the Government in a scheme of emigration. Certainly they would; there was no fear about emigration, but the crofters asked why they should be called upon to leave their country when the greater portion of it remained uninhabited? Why not give the people at least one-half or two-thirds of the Islands? He should be pleased to help the Government in every way to ameliorate the condition of the people. But there were now 2,000,000 acres of deer forests in the Highlands; and he asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to clear the whole population out of the country, and leave it for deer forests? And if emigration took place, would not those who remained be just as poor as before under the present circumstances? Would the Government give assistance to these people for stocking their farms? There need not be any fear that the money would not be repaid, and that might be seen in the Commissioners' Report. They had been given money for boats, and he could not understand why
  1070
  they should not be assisted with money for the purpose of stock. They had all along been contending that the holdings of the crofters should be increased; and if a man had a small holding by the cultivation of which he could not live, the only cure was to give him a larger holding. He was very sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up the position he had with regard to this question, and he was very much afraid that his optimistic views—although no one would be more glad than he if they became true—would not be realized. It was well known that the people were very nearly starving; he himself had been the means, with the assistance of some Members of the House, of sending a lot of seed potatoes to them, and he was told that the people were on the point of starvation. When people were in that condition, and when it was no disgrace, as in Ireland, to go to prison for breaking the Land Law, he said it was a very bad thing for law and order. He regretted that the Government were not going to do anything for these people, and that their last word was that they must clear out of the country.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, by adopting a different course, might have saved much of the discussion which had taken place. He was quite certain that he did not mean to maintain that nothing should be done in order to make beneficial the Act which that House had taken so much trouble to pass for the benefit of the crofters. He did not think they could go behind that Act. The House of Commons intended that the crofters' holdings should be extended, and the Commission was expressly appointed to carry out that intention. But as it very frequently happened, Bills, however carefully drafted, sometimes when in operation failed to carry out the intention of their framers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had told them that the portion of the Act which related to the enlargement of the crofters' holdings was the one to which he attached the greatest importance, but he said there was not a single instance of an enlargement of a holding having taken place. The Crofters' Commission had issued a Re-

  1071
  port in which they referred to the reason for the failure of the Act as a perfectly obvious one—namely, that the Act required that the land from which the enlargement was sought must be "contiguous to the holding." That was a matter which he thought could be got over without difficulty. The second difficulty to which they called attention was the poverty of the crofters, which prevented them stocking their holdings. That might be a difficulty if the Government were in power which passed the Act, because they had declared their intention to give no money from the public funds for the purpose of carrying out the Act. He remembered, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was in Opposition, how sarcastic he was upon the Government for taking up that line of policy, and how remorselessly he chaffed them for not putting their hands in their pockets to do something practical in the direction of carrying out the recommendations of the Crofter Commission. The present Government did not look at the matter now in the same light; but they were giving bonuses for fishing boats and emigration purposes. And what did all that result in? He had risen particularly to call attention to one small matter regarding which there could be no diversity of opinion, and which, if the law were amended, would greatly facilitate the operation of the Crofters' Act. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looked through the Report, he would see that in a great number of cases the Crofter Commission had not been able to overtake the work—that such and such applications had not been attended to, "because the district had not been visited by the Commission;" and that in another the Commissioners "had been obliged to leave the district before they had attended to the applications;" and so on. Why should not the Government do what he had over and over again suggested—namely, to strengthen the Commission, which would enable them to get through their work without delay? The cost of two additional Commissioners would be very little, and if these were appointed he believed the country would be able to get out of the Act what good there was in it. That was a point on which he was certain the Government might legislate with assist-
  1072
  ance and support of every section of the House.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAINsaid, he should not have ventured to intervene in the debate were it not for the fact that about 12 months ago he had visited, on the invitation of the representatives of the crofters themselves, the districts affected, and spent some time in the Islands of Lewis and Skye, as well as the adjacent mainland. During that visit he had made inquiries of the people themselves as to what their grievances were, and as to the remedies which they thought the Legislature ought to provide for them. He had seen them in little knots on the road side, at meetings in schoolrooms and out-of-the-way places; and altogether he must have spoken with many hundreds of them before he finished his tour, and in every case the account which they gave of their condition and wants was almost precisely the same. It was quite true that the great difficulty in regard to the crofter population was the insufficiency of the land which they cultivated. The question of rent was altogether of minor importance, and no doubt any grievance with regard to that had been adequately met by the legislation passed three years ago. But with regard to the desire for more land—he might say the necessity for more land, if these people were to subsist in their present situation—there could, in his opinion, be no doubt whatever. In many cases the occupants of the holdings, or their predecessors, had taken them in the hope and expectation of gaining an extraneous subsistence, either from the getting of kelp, or from other kinds of labour. But those other kinds of labour had entirely failed them, and they found it absolutely impossible to get a living out of the land. In many cases the difficulty had no doubt been caused by the improvidence of the people themselves, who had, when they got the land, allowed cottars to settle on it, and had allowed their holdings to be sub-divided, so that the land which was originally sufficient for one occupant had ceased to be sufficient for its present population. To these facts, which could not possibly be disputed, must be added the sentiment of the people that they were suffering a grievous injustice on the ground that the land had in past

  1073
  times belonged in some sort to themselves, and that they had been removed from it against their will to make way for large farms and deer forests. They accordingly claimed that they should be restored to what they said their ancestors possessed. He had also on his visit seen many landlords, whose story, of course, put a different face on the statement received from the crofters. The landowners generally disputed the historical accuracy of this sentimental grievance, and maintained that the land was never the property of the crofters, or of their predecessors; and that the transfer of the population which had undoubtedly taken place was as much in the interest of the crofters themselves as of the landlords. They maintained that at the time the crofters were thereby offered a better chance of livelihood by the seaside than they could possibly have obtained in the inland parts to which they now desired to return. But whatever might be the absolute historical truth of the matter, it was perfectly certain that this sentimental grievance on the part of the crofters very much strengthened their feeling that it was unfair to propose to them any other alternative until the alternative of migration had been exhausted, and he was convinced that no scheme of emigration would have a fair chance until the crofters were satisfied that the Legislature had done all that could be reasonably expected from it in affording them the opportunity of obtaining a larger portion of land in their own country. But even if the Legislature were to do all that hon. Members from Scotland were now asking, it must not be supposed that any very large and material amelioration of the condition of the crofters would result. There were two difficulties in the way, to which allusion had been made by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. In the first place, there was not enough land to provide for all the population. At the present time in Lewis, if the whole of the land were given to the crofters, it could not possibly provide for more than one-half of the population. But in answer to this the crofters said—"Give us what there is, and when that has been exhausted we will talk about emigration. Let those who can be provided for be provided for at home." Then there was the second difficulty, which was still more important and hard
  1074
  to overcome—namely, the impossibility of the crofters stocking the land, or doing anything satisfactory with it if they obtained it. He was told, a short time ago, that the celebrated Ben Lee pasture land, which was the original cause of the disturbances in Skye, and which, by the act of the Commission, was handed over to the crofters, remained without a single head of cattle upon it, the crofters being unable to stock it. That, at any rate, was the case 12 months ago. It was all very well to say that the Government could find the money to stock the farms. He protested against that; and when he was with the crofters he told them that he would never support such a proposal, and that he believed that the House of Commons would not undertake so risky an operation as that of lending money on stock to these small tenants. It was a doubtful policy to lend money on boats and nets, which could, at all events, be insured, and on land which could not be removed, but those things offered a better security than cattle and sheep; and if ever money were to be lent in the manner suggested, he felt quite sure that the greater portion of it would be lost. He had pointed out to the crofters that they had no right to call on the people of England, Scotland and Wales, who were, many of them, quite as poor as themselves, to guarantee this assistance. The conclusion at which he had arrived, and which he was most anxious to impress on the crofters, who were most worthy of sympathy and assistance, was that a great portion of them must seek their remedy in emigration. By their own admission there was no room for them all at home. Some of them must go; and at the present moment the point was how those who went could be best provided for. He did not hesitate to say that this operation must be carried out with the assistance of the Government, and that course, in his opinion, need not involve any serious risk. The plan would be materially assisted if the Government would consider, before bringing forward their proposals, whether they might not at the same time offer some facilities for migration. He did not think those facilities would be availed of to a large extent, but he believed that the sentiment of the people would be met if they were told that in future, at all events, those who could

  1075
  stock additional land would be provided with it, so far as such land existed. He believed that the whole difficulty of extending the holdings lay in the words of the Act, "contiguous holding." He could not for the life of him see why those words should remain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had recommended his Act to the House very much on the ground of the enormous abuse created by the deer forests of Mr. Winans. Everybody in the House admitted the abuse, and would be glad to see it remedied; but those words had made it impossible to take one inch of his lands. That was certainly a scandal, and he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) could not conceive why some portion of the enormous deer forest of Mr. Winans on the mainland, which was admirably suited to the purposes of the crofters, should not be taken for the benefit of the crofters, even though they lived on the Islands of Lewis and Skye, which were not contiguous to his property. He had risen for the purpose of urging upon the Government that this matter should, at all events, be taken into consideration, although he entirely agreed with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the cardinal and real remedy was to be found in a generous and carefully devised scheme of emigration.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDsaid, he did not wish to intervene in the debate for the purpose of complaining of the remarks of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but simply to say a few words because of the urgency of this question. The crofters had stated before the Commission and by their Representatives in that House that they could not get the quantity of land which they desired to cultivate. In February of this year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had pointed out the reason why the Crofters Act was a failure, and hon. Gentlemen had now got the evidence of the Crofters' Commission, over whom agitation could have no control whatever, and that evidence fully corroborated all that hon. Members on those Benches had said upon the subject. Now, the answer which they got from the Government was unmistakable—namely, that they
  1076
  would provide for the emigration of the people who wanted land to cultivate to the extent of £10,000. With all due deference to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, he would like some further confirmation of his statement that the people desired emigration. Then, with regard to Lewis, did the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate mean to say that it was typical of the whole of the Highlands?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that was not the case either in regard to population or distress.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDsaid, he was glad of that admission, because in that case the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to Lewis did not apply to any part of the Highlands. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD: They apply in degree.] He (Mr. A. Sutherland) was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had approached this question in a tone and spirit quite different from that of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. He (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had gone to the Highlands, and conversed with the people themselves, and he thought if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate were to do the same he would considerably modify the statement he had made. The contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there had been no application for land in the case of deer forests, had been amply disposed of by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. Macdonald). The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there was power in the Act to extend holdings, but the clause providing for this was limited by no less than 20 conditions, and it was a mere mockery to tell the people, under the circumstances, that there was power to enlarge holdings. He was glad that the Government of the day which passed the Act had no responsibility for that clause. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that they should first exhaust the resources at home before emigration was tried; but the people distinctly refused to emigrate until they had seen what could be done by the enlargement of holdings from these extensive deer forests and sheep farms. He said it was nothing less than a calamity to receive the answer which the right hon.

  1077
  and learned Gentleman had made to the question put to him; and he hoped he would be better advised, and see his way to withdraw the opinion he had given. But if the answer of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was the last word of the Government, hon. Members would know exactly where they stood.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the Members for Scotland on those Benches were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) for his sympathy with the people in the Highlands. The cause of the failure of the Act was a radical fault in the measure itself as respects the enlargement of holdings. It had been pointed out from the first that it would be inoperative, and the result had proved the truth of that statement. He (Sir George Campbell) thought that if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would try to get over the difficulty by amending the Act, instead of quoting long speeches from Hansard to show that he always was utterly opposed to the whole system of the enlargement of holdings, the Government might find a way out of this difficulty.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he had never stated anything of the kind. He had said most distinctly that if the scheme of the Government were accepted, the removal of the people from the congested districts would set free land for the enlargement of the holdings of those who remained.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he quite understood that; but as regarded any other enlarging of holdings, he repeated that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done nothing but use all his forensic eloquence to prove that it ought not to be done. The difficulty in the case of Lewis arose, no doubt, from the increase which had taken place of the inhabitants; but in the Highlands at large there were lands which had once been cultivated, and might be cultivated again, and he thought, notwithstanding that the difficulties were very great, something might be done. With regard to the advance of money, he pointed out, although he admitted the difficulties referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that the crofters were not large in number as compared with the whole popula-
  1078
  tion of the Kingdom, and that this rich country, which could spend £70,000 on a picture, and many millions in miserable wars, might very well do something, if only a little, to aid them in stocking the land. The remedy of the Government was emigration. But he could not admit that this was a simple and easy remedy, and one which would get rid of the whole difficulty. It would cost at least as much to settle a crofter in America as in Scotland, and, looking to climate and habits, they would not always succeed. The Government had done a good deal for Ireland; they had amended the Irish Land Act, and he was at a loss to understand why they should not also amend the Crofters' Act.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he had the honour of sitting on the Commission of 1883, and he must say that the question of enlarged holdings was a remedy pressed upon the Commission most strongly. He was very much disappointed with the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate; and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) would not allow the debate to close without saying something more than they had heard from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. If they had heard the last word of the Government, he feared the effect would be very disastrous for the people of the Highlands.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, he wished to make an observation with regard to one question that had been raised in the course of the discussion—namely, as to repayment by the crofters of money advanced on the security of crops and cattle. Under a former Government, Lord Cross had three years ago introduced into the House of Lords a Bill for the purpose of enabling a body of rich men, capitalists and philanthropists, to advance money in that way. The noble Lord had studied the question very deeply, and Lord Salisbury took upon himself the introduction of the measure referred to; but owing to the drafting, and the fact that the Bill was brought in at a moment's notice, and perhaps from the fact that the noble Lord had not fully appreciated all the circumstances, the then Government, which was a Liberal Government, objected that the Bill would confine the lending powers to a certain body of men

  1079
  and would not make the provisions general. He would take this opportunity of asking the Government whether they would in the present case give facilities to persons of capital for advancing money to the crofters for the purpose of stocking their holdings?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY W. H. SMITH): Sir, I rise to say a few words in response to two questions put to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, first, I may be allowed to say that I cannot help thinking we are acting somewhat harshly towards the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) by taking away from him the time he has reason to expect will be conceded to him. I may also point out that the observations of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) illustrate the inconvenience of such Motions as that which is now before us, the subject he has raised being one of which no Notice has been given. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) has asked me to supplement the answer of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). Well, Sir, the answer of my right hon. and learned Friend is, I am sorry to say, the answer of the Government. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will himself perceive that it would not be wise for us to hold out to the crofter population, for whom everyone in this House has sympathy—expectations which in the nature of things cannot be fulfilled. It is not a difficult matter for persons to make promises, but it is incumbent upon those who do so to be quite certain that their promises are fairly capable of being realized. One of the difficulties we have to face is that there is no adjacent land which can be added to many of the existing crofts, and I know of no means by which land can be created for the purpose. This, Sir, is one of the inherent difficulties of the case which has to be confronted when dealing with this question. Another inherent difficulty is that of the absence of capital and the absolute poverty of the crofters themselves; and in the course of this and the previous discussions which have taken place on the subject, no hon. Gentleman has pointed out how land can be cultivated unless the owner has capital to enable him to do so, nor has
  1080
  any hon. Gentleman shown how capital can be advanced in the present case with proper security for repayment. The hon. Member for Montgomery has asked if the Government will give facilities to enable persons of capital to advance money upon land; but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as a matter of fact, such facilities already exist. There can be no doubt whatever that the difficulties which have been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) are real difficulties, and such as the Government would not be justified in minimizing or ignoring; and I may add that we should be unworthy of the position which we occupy if we were to seek to deceive the House of Commons, or the unfortunate crofter population, by holding out expectations or promises which would prove utterly fallacious and could not possibly be realized. Therefore, Sir, if the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) thinks it right to press his Motion to a Division, the Government will be bound in duty to oppose it; but I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that some hon. Gentlemen might vote for the Motion, simply to avoid a night's debate upon a subject which those who sympathized with the object of the hon. Member for Northampton wished to discuss.
  DR. CLARKsaid, in deference to the sense of the House, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 205: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 87.)

NOTICE OF MOTION:

  NEW WRIT—THE ST. STEPHEN'S GREEN DIVISION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to give Notice that, unless the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), or another Member of the Party to which he belongs, take action in the matter, I shall to-morrow move that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the election of a Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of the City of Dublin, now vacant.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should like to ask whether this Notice has been given in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), and whether he has given his approval to a course which is entirely contrary to the practice of the House and to the courtesies usually observed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS -DOUGLAS): Perhaps I might be allowed to answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that the action of my hon. and gallant Friend has not been taken in concert with me, nor in concert with the Government at all. The understanding which generally binds official Members of the House is that 24 hours' Notice should be given of the intention of either side to move for the issue of a new Writ, and the Motion is generally made by a Representative of the Party to which the Member whose seat is rendered vacant belongs. I was not here when my hon. and gallant Friend gave his Notice; but if he gave 24 hours' Notice, no doubt the understanding between the two sides is kept. As far as I am myself concerned, I will not take any action in the matter.

MOTIONS.
  WASTE AND VACANT LANDS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. BRADLAUGHin rising, pursuant to Notice, to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, ownership of land in the United Kingdom should carry with it the duty of cultivation or utilization, and that in all cases where land capable of cultivation or utilization with profit, and not devoted to some purpose of public utility or enjoyment, is held in a vacant, waste, or uncultivated state, the local authorities ought to have the power to compulsorily acquire such land by payment to the owner of a sum representing the capital agricultural value of such lands, in order that such local authorities may, in their discretion, let the said lands to tenant cultivators, with such conditions as to term of tenancy, rent, reclamation, drainage, utilization and cultivation respectively as shall afford reasonable encouragement, opportunities, facilities, and security for the due utilization, cultivation, and development of the said lands,"
    said, that the array of Amendments which had been put down to the Motion that he now had to submit, induced him
    1082
    to hope that at least the subject was one in which the House was beginning to take a greater interest, and the unanimity almost of opinion among those who had given Notice of those Amendments that there was a large quantity of uncultivated land in this country also led him to hope that he might secure their assistance against the other Amendment which challenged that proposition. There was an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) which, if it was not moved that night, might, he supposed, be taken as a speech for that debate, and which declared that the proposition contained in his Motion was one that was not consistent with the liberties of a free people, and that the process of compulsion shadowed forth in it was so repugnant to that hon. Gentleman that he must earnestly protest against it at once. There was a comfort in having opposed to him a devoted follower of the Government like the hon. Member for Wandsworth, because when that hon. Member saw the First Lord of the Treasury going into the Lobby in support of that Motion—as he would be bound to do if he carried out the traditions of his own Government—he hoped that the hon. Member would no longer denounce the principle of compulsion. He should hardly have ventured to take up the ground he did upon this subject if he had not known that the present Prime Minister had twice within the last eight years deliberately made proposals and put them into force for the compulsory taking of uncultivated land. In Cyprus a law was passed to promote the cultivation of land, and the Ordinance was dated the 2nd of April, 1879. Among other things, it enacted that where a landowner had left more than two-thirds of his land which was capable of cultivation in an uncultivated state he should pay a penalty, a tax on the whole of the land, to the Government as a fine for not having cultivated it. That having failed, the Government took more stringent measures, and in an Ordinance dated June 24th, 1885, it was set forth that all cultivable land which had been left uncultivated for 10 years should be confiscated by the Government. In the discussion of this question, he would lay down certain propositions, the first of which was, that the ownership of land should carry with it the duty of

    1083
    cultivation or utilization in some form. In a crowded country like this no right of property should allow a man to pursue a dog-in-the-manger attitude, and arrest the development of the natural resources of the soil. The authorities should compel the possessor of land to use his land for the general welfare. The action of the Government in Cyprus showed that they had accepted that proposition, at least in part. In the debate on this subject last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) said that land carried with it the duty of cultivation, and also the practice, unless there were good reasons to the contrary. Unfortunately, he had learnt that in law the ownership of land did not carry with it the duty, and he should submit that it had not carried with it the practice, of cultivation. In the case of "the Attorney General against Lord Sefton," Mr. Baron Pollock stated that the proprietor of the land had a right to make what a reasonable use of it he pleased, and sometimes even an unreasonable use of it, and that he was not bound so to use it as to make it yield the largest revenue to the Government or to pay taxes as if he did. He challenged the doctrine that a man had the right to prevent the opening up of mines underneath his property. He did not challenge the law; he challenged that it should be the law, and he submitted that, in a crowded country like this, where admittedly hunger and misery existed, no right of property ought to be allowed by which a man might forbid the natural development of the wealth of the country for the benefit of the toilers and workers in it. If the law at present gave a right to an owner of 50,000 acres to say that, although his land would provide employment to hundreds or thousands of people in mines underneath it, he would not permit mines to be worked there, and would compel the people to starve, it should be altered, and the authorities should have the right to step in and compel him to utilize his property, as they compelled the labourer to utilize his labour, for the well-being of society, of which the individual was a part. His next proposition was that there was a large quantity of land in this country in a waste and uncultivated condition, which might and
    1084
    ought to be cultivated. In speaking of cultivation he did not mean corn-growing. He meant that the land should be utilized for whatever it could be used profitably. It was estimated last year that there were some 12,000,000 acres of land in the United Kingdom and Ireland in an uncultivated state, which land might be cultivated with profit. Taking England, Wales, and Ireland—he proposed to leave Scotland to the hon. Member for the Leith district, who he hoped would second the Resolution, and who could speak with a special knowledge of the country—Mr. Denton, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1882, said that the irreclaimable land in England and Wales was 4,722,100 acres in extent, the cultivable land 27,000,000 acres, and the uncultivated land capable of improvement 5,596,000 acres. Within a few miles of London, in the County of Sussex, there were 100,000 acres of waste and uncultivated land. Some thousands of this were in Ashdown Forest. He did not know who was the owner, but The Weekly Bulletin stated that it was the property of the Earl De La Warr, who was lord of Ashdown Forest, and he had satisfied himself by abundant evidence that most of it was good land capable of profitable cultivation. In Ireland, according to high authorities, there were 6,000,000 acres of land lying needlessly unproductive. Professor Baldwin, examined by the Duke of Richmond, said there were 1,500,000 acres that would admit of reclamation and nearly 1,000,000 acres of bog land, while there were three or four times those quantities of semi-waste land that could be cultivated with profit. Why was not all this land reclaimed? Why did we talk of emigrating people while it was left uncultivated? There was plenty of evidence that the land in the greater part of Mayo and the mountain bogs of Tipperary and Kerry had been reclaimed by tenants without any assistance from landlords, who raised the rent upon it as soon as it had been made to produce anything; and with better security the land now unreclaimed could be made equally productive. Similar things had happened in England, particularly in the case of lands controlled by the Duchy of Cornwall. He did not pretend that all kinds of cultivation could be made profitable

    1085
    in this country; but we imported £3,000,000 worth of eggs annually, and uncultivated lands would at least maintain the poultry that produced eggs in lieu of those imported. In many places agricultural labourers were not permitted to keep fowls, and in some places where they did, the business was made unprofitable by the landlords' foxes. We also imported fruit and dairy produce that we ought to produce at home. It was true there were difficulties in the way, and among them was the favouritism shown by our Railway Companies to imported produce. The Mayor of Manchester gave evidence that produce was brought from France at less rates than were paid for carrying English produce one-third of the distance. It was dearer to take fruit from one part of Lincolnshire to another than to take it from the South of France to a Lincolnshire market. The question was also complicated by the absence of market facilities in this country. He asked the House not to reject his Motion because there were difficulties in the way, and to recognize that he was raising the question, not for the purpose of making an attack upon landowners, but of suggesting the best way of meeting the rising storm which must one day break out from the close juxtaposition, especially in our large towns, of hunger and misery with vast accumulations of wealth. It would be wise to meet that storm by remedial measures. The Socialist cry which was heard everywhere was translatable into the expression of hunger and want. If they met the cry of the belly, there would be little difficulty in meeting the argument of the brain. If he pleaded with the House on this question it was because he was speaking for the class among whom he was born and for whom he was bound to plead. He was convinced that much of the land in the country which now did not pay could be made to pay, and he knew of one striking instance in Northumberland where a landowner having failed to get anything out of 700 acres had handed theirs over to his bailiff, with the result that the land was made profitable. He was asking the House to listen to facts, and his proposition was that the ownership of land involved duties as well as rights, and his desire was to avert in England what in Ireland had already become, and in Scotland was gradually becoming, a fearful war be-
    1086
    tween one class of society and another. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that he would not be met by a bare non possumus. His plan would do far more for the people in this country than the many plans for the employment of the unemployed which generally ultimately involved an increase of debt and taxation. He had modified his Motion into a form which ho hoped would prove acceptable to the House. It was said that he proposed to confiscate property; he did nothing of the kind, and for all that he proposed to do, he could plead the authority of the present Government.
    MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONin seconding the Motion, said, he thought the arguments of the hon. Member who just sat down would reassure many of those who were uncertain of his objects in bringing forward this Resolution. The hon. Member had shown a desire to meet all reasonable objections. He voted last year in favour of the Motion with considerable hesitation, but he would do so on this occasion with perfect confidence. It might not be even yet absolutely perfect, but if hon. Members opposite would deal with the matter in a fair spirit, any reasonable Amendment which they might suggest would be accepted, so long as the principle was not impaired. The principle of the Resolution was that some efficient check should be secured against the misuse of land. In Scotland, for instance, there were a few proprietors practically owning the whole of the country. He thought some action of the sort indicated in the Resolution would give the public confidence that those rights of property were not abused, and hon. Gentlemen opposite might accept this as a serviceable prop for the present land system. There was no practical agriculturist who would not admit that land with better management might be turned to much better account than it was at present. The land system of this country was peculiarly open to attack, and in the Allotments Act the Government had themselves assailed that system in much the same way as was proposed in the Motion before the House. After all, what did the Resolution come to? The Allotments Act of last year gave compulsory power to purchase land for allotment and common pasture at market value; but under the Resolution it would be taken at its capital agricultural value. If hon. Mem-

    1087
    bers would turn to the Crofters' Acts, they would find that, under very strong restrictions, land could be taken from deer forests for the crofters at its agricultural value, and without regard to its sporting value. Under this Resolution, no land could be taken unless the landlord choose to allow it to lie waste. He had come to the conclusion that it was by this method that the land difficulty in the Highlands might be most readily met. He thought, within proper limits, the system of forests was one which might add to the wealth of the country without injuring the population. But there must be two important exceptions drawn to that system. The first was as to lands which were capable of agricultural or pastoral occupation, and the second as to lands which were suitable to the growth of timber. He did not think that in the forests there was a large amount of land which was capable of agricultural occupation; but he did know some very bad cases in which land capable of cultivation had been allowed to go waste, and was now under deer. A much larger proportion of land should be devoted to the growth of timber, and one of the most important recommendations of the Forestry Commission, which met last year, was that large tracts of land in Scotland should be planted. In order to show the reasonable character of the proposals in this Resolution, he would draw a comparison between them and that portion of the Crofters' Act dealing with the "more land" question in the Highlands. The principle embodied in that Act was so essentially Communistic that it had to be restricted in a manner which practically rendered its application nugatory in order to secure that there should remain any private property in land. The Crofters' Act rested partly on an imaginary basis. Its operation was confined to an imaginary Highland area; while without restrictions on compulsory leasing the capital value of land would be destroyed. But, in comparison with this, the Resolution now before the House stood on a firm basis. Various proposals were being made for amending that Act by extending the Highland area and in other ways; but he thought the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton was safer, more comprehensive, and practical. It rested on a firm basis of expediency, and enlarged the scope of those provisions of the Crof-
    1088
    ters' Act which had been shown to be of very little value as they now stood. He thought some checks on the expropriation of land by Local Authorities would be entirely reasonable, otherwise they might have a case such as might occur in Sutherlandshire, which practically belonged to one man, in which the representative authority might expropriate the owner on his own security, and, probably, against his will, without any safeguards. If it were required, some confirming authority could be very easily obtained. Either in that or some other way the land difficulties would have to be seriously approached. It was no use laughing at this or that scheme and entering a non possums, for until the question was solved it would grow more and more serious. It ought always to be borne in mind that though land might not be able to pay rent to a landlord, still that it might be profitably cultivated under a system of individual occupying ownership. Rent-paying tenants in this country had to compete with rent-free tenants in America; and he was confident, from what he had seen of the results of that competition, that one of the ways in which they could most effectually meet it was to have an occupying ownership at home. He did not quite agree with the Resolution as to the management of land by Local Authorities. He did not think it was likely to be very successful. But that was merely a change of method. He said we should have peasant proprietorship; and it was perfectly easy, through expropriation, for the Local Authorities, or by means of such a scheme as that of the Land Banks of Prussia, to establish peasant proprietorship. Emigration had been presented as a solution of the land question. It must always be of importance to consider whether, with the great opportunities there were abroad, we should accept inferior opportunities at home. But no system of emigration would be successful unless it was conducted so as to avoid any rankling sense of wrong in the minds of those who emigrated. Certainly there might advantageously be a good deal more emigration than at present, and it might be necessary to consider the whole question of State-aided emigration, especially as the Colonies were ceasing to help emigrants. There was the proposition that we should revert to Protection

    1089
    rather than carry out reforms in the land system. Did any hon. Members believe they could carry out a system of Protection with the present land system without incurring the danger of a revolution? The competition they now experienced was breaking up the present land. system; and he would not admit that it was an unmixed evil. It was argued that land was becoming a luxury for the rich. He could hardly conceive a more pernicious doctrine. At the same time the more land that was owned by men with capital the better. Capital should be attracted to the land in every possible way. He defied anyone to prove that a Resolution in favour of securing some check against waste lands in this country would succeed in diverting one sovereign from the soil of the country. They should deal with these questions impartially and fearlessly, and in a spirit of patriotism which would rather overlook personal interests and pleasures for the common weal, for the maintenance of their social stability, and for their national strength. If we were to remain the centre of a strong Empire there was no better way of securing our strength and stability than by well-considered land reform. He admitted that the agricultural interest was now suffering under many burdens that might be fairly alleviated. Before, however, the agricultural interest could be strong so as to secure its due, the present system, which created disunion and jealousy, instead of union and strength, would have to be reformed. If the present system was broken up and replaced by a system of occupying ownership the agricultural interest would be in a much better position to meet foreign competition. Land was the most important as it was the most permanent source of our well-being, and the object of true statesmanship should be to educate and encourage an educated and thrifty peasant proprietary.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, ownership of land in the United Kingdom should carry with it the duty of cultivation or utilization, and that in all cases where land capable of cultivation or utilization with profit, and not devoted to some purpose of public utility or enjoyment, is held in a vacant, waste, or uncultivated state, the local authorities ought to have the power to compulsorily acquire such land by payment to the owner of a sum repre-
    1090
    senting the capital agricultural value of such lands, in order that such local authorities may, in their discretion, let the said lands to tenant cultivators, with such conditions as to term of tenancy, rent, reclamation, drainage, utilization, and cultivation respectively as shall afford reasonable encouragement, opportunities, facilities, and security for the due utilization, cultivation, and development of the said lands."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the Amendment which stood in his name; but, in the first place, he desired to say he sympathized with a great deal that had fallen from the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. He sympathized with the general principle those hon. Gentlemen had propounded in their Resolution. That general principle he took to be that the land of this Empire should be put to proper and profitable uses. He also agreed with the principle of the proposition the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) started with—namely, that the ownership of the soil should carry with it the duty of utilization or cultivation, where it was profitable so to do; but he submitted that the hon. Gentleman had failed altogether to lay stress upon the fact whether to do so was a profitable transaction or not. That, it seemed to him (Mr. Seton-Karr), was an important part of the question. He listened most carefully to the arguments the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution had used; but he confessed that though the assumptions they made were very large indeed, the hon. Mover seemed to disregard altogether the financial aspect of the question, and based his objection to the present proposal on the one ground that what was not economically sound could not be politically right. On that basis, he proposed to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. If the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, or the hon. Member who seconded it, could show him that what they proposed would be a profitable transaction—that it would result in pecuniary and economical profit to all parties concerned—he would gladly vote for their proposition. Now, the first general objection he took to the Resolution was that it would compel the landowner to accept the first person who applied as the tenant of his land, regardless of the terms and of the circumstances. The landowner would have

    1091
    his hand forced. He would not be able to exercise his discretion as to the kind of tenant he would have, because the penalty suggested was that if he allowed his land to remain out of cultivation for a season he was to be liable to have the land compulsorily forfeited. That was a proposition which could not be entertained. It was a violation, to a very great extent, of the rights of property; and if the principle was to be admitted in this instance, it appeared to him it must apply to all kinds of property. The only justification for interfering with the right of a landlord to let his land in such a manner as might appear to him proper was that there was a danger of a monopoly in land. It was true there had been legislation to regulate the charges made by Water Companies and to regulate the rates charged by Railway Companies for the carriage of goods; but neither of these cases applied to the question now before the House. Had any man in his wildest financial dreams ever thought of getting up a "corner" in land? It had been already pointed out that evening that it was impossible for any landowner to do anything of the kind, for the simple reason that foreign competition regulated the price of agricultural produce in this country—dictated the price at which that produce should be sold to the consumer. He was aware there was a class of men outside the House who took a very low view of landlords; but he submitted that hon. Members were entitled to assume that landlords were men in possession of all their faculties. Could any sane man suppose for a moment that landlords, taken as a class, would leave their land uncultivated, if it were possible that that land could be cultivated or let to a tenant at a profit? Although he did not dispute that there were barren acres in the country, he could not admit the accuracy of the figures of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). Where there was uncultivated waste or vacant land in this country, it was land which hard and bitter experience had taught landowners could not be profitably cultivated. He asked the House, and especially the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), to account for the fact that in many parts of the country
    1092
    labourers preferred to work for wages rather than cultivate holdings for themselves which, under recent legislation, they could obtain upon easy and reasonable terms. If the cultivation of the soil was to override every other consideration, why did not the hon. Member for Northampton attack the system under which land and agricultural produce was so unfairly taxed? The heavy taxation of land was a much more crying evil than that the land was held by a comparatively few men. As a matter of fact, it was not necessary for him to labour the argument. It was admitted on all hands that, under the present system of local administration, land and agricultural produce were far more heavily taxed than any other property. He believed the Local Government Bill now before the House would deal with the question; but his point was, why had not those who were so jealous about the cultivation of the soil attacked the system under which land was now so unfairly taxed? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Leith Burghs had alluded to the question of Protection. It seemed to him (Mr. Seton-Karr) that the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution ought to become Protectionists, because, logically, that was the only position they could assume, for the very reason that Protection was the most direct remedy for bringing about the extended cultivation of the land which they complained was waste. He (Mr. Seton-Karr) himself was not a Protectionist—he would never advocate the protection of corn—but if the Mover of the Resolution considered that the cultivation of the soil was to override all economical objections, it seemed to him that the hon. Member ought to go to the most direct remedy he could find. Now, he wished to come to some of the objections to the Motion which were founded strictly on the terms of the Motion itself. He had no desire to misrepresent the hon. Member when he said that the Resolution raised distinctly financial and economical matters. The Resolution proposed that—
    "The Local Authorities ought to have the power to compulsorily acquire such land by payment to the owner of a sum representing the capital agricultural value of such lands."
    But by the terms of the Motion the land in question had no capital agricultural value, and the price to the landlord

    1093
    was to be regulated accordingly—that was to say, he was to get nothing for his land. He (Mr. Seton-Karr) submitted that that was a violation of the rights of property. The supporters of the Resolution might call it compulsory purchase if they liked; but it amounted, as far as he could understand the matter, to unqualified robbery. He did not think that was a principle which they, in these days, were inclined to carry out. The same principle might with equal justice be applied to all kinds of property; and if that principle was to be discussed at all, let it be discussed in all its naked deformity, and not as applied to one kind of property alone. But he would assume that the supporters of the Motion mean to allow some market value—that they meant to provide that the Local Authorities should give some market value for the land they acquired at their discretion. Did the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) include permanent pasture in the land which was described as "vacant and waste?" The hon. Member made no sign of assent.
    BRADLAUGHadmitted that there was no explanation on that point in the speech he delivered that night, although there was in the speech he made last year. He explained that he had quoted from the Agricultural Return, and he took the uncultivated land described in that Return for the purposes of debate.
    MR. SETON-KARRtook it that the land included land laid down for permanent pasture. If it did not include that, he would like to know where the hon. Member got his figures from?
    MR. BRADIATIGHsaid, the figures in the Agricultural Return showed a much larger quantity of uncultivated land altogether than 12,000,000 acres, which he put as the quantity in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, that, he took it, was land which by no possibility could be cultivated or reclaimed. But to return to his point, the terms of the Motion. The uncultivated lands of this country were used, to a more or less extent, for grazing purposes, and land of this kind, that was now being put to the best possible use, was to be the subject of the experiment of the hon. Member for Northampton. In that case the owner would get some-
    1094
    thing for his land; but he would not get the full value. Precedents had been quoted for the terms of this Resolution. It had been pointed out that in the case of railways and canals powers had been given for the compulsory acquisition of land. But there was this difference between railways and canals and the cultivation of waste lands—that in the case of railways and canals, and such-like public or quasi-public undertakings, land was always paid for in full, and the valuation was arrived at by full investigations before a properly qualified tribunal. But in this case the hon. Member substituted an arbitrary valuation of his own, and that seemed to him (Mr. Seton-Karr) a very strong financial objection to the hon. Member's proposal. But let him examine the matter a little further. Local Authorities, it seemed to him, would not get such a good bargain as one might suppose. The land would be obtained, perhaps, for a fraction of its value. Then, by the terms of the Resolution, the Local Authorities were to give—
    "Encouragement, opportunities, facilities, and security for the due utilization, cultivation, and development of the said lands."
    Those words filled him with considerable alarm. What was the plain meaning of those words? The new cultivators would be impecunious; if they had any money of their own they would certainly lose it; but it would not be their own money they were to lose, but the money of the ratepayers. What did that really amount to? It meant that landlords were to have a portion of their land taken from them compulsorily and below its real value, and they were to be rated on the remaining portion, in order to prop up an unprofitable enter-prize. This was not a financial scheme which recommended itself to his limited intelligence, and it was upon the economic ground that he should strongly oppose the proposal of the hon. Member. As he had already said, he agreed with a good deal which had fallen from the hon. Me caber for for Northampton. What were the evils which this proposal was intended to remedy? They formed, as a matter of fact, the great social problems of the present day. They were, overcrowding in certain parts of the United Kingdom, and the want of employment; they were the misery and want which

    1095
    were caused by the rapid increase in the population, and by the agricultural and industrial depression. The agricultural depression was driving agricultural labourers into the large towns at the rate of 60,000 a-year. They had to deal with a very large and serious difficulty; they had to deal with thousands of starving peasantry and crofters, and thousands of unemployed in the large cities. Was that economically unsound proposal calculated to remedy this state of things? It seemed to him that something far wider and more extensive was required. Compulsory purchase necessarily could do nothing to reduce the density of the population of these Islands; and he submitted that no evidence whatever had been laid before the House to show that the land which was described as "vacant, waste, or uncultivated," could by any possibility be made more profitable under the agency of Local Authorities than it was now under the present system of private ownership. He believed the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) was entirely sincere in his motive; but he submitted that the hon. Member's energies were misdirected, for he was attacking the owners of the soil, instead of the conditions under which they lived, as Don Quixote attacked the windmill, or a flock of sheep for a host of men. He did not desire to detain the House longer than he could possibly help; but there was one case he desired to refer to. It was the ease of the crofters in the Island of Lewis. They had heard something of them already; but the authority he should like to take, and which he did not believe had been referred to in any of the speeches that evening, was the Report which the Secretary for Scotland laid on the Table of the House in January of this year. It was a Report signed by two gentlemen who held official appointments in the Island of Lewis, and there was no reason to suppose that they were in any way biassed in their political views. They certainly did know that those gentlemen knew what they were talking about, and understood the condition of matters. They pointed out that the population of Lewis had increased since 1850 50 per cent; it was then 17,000, and it was now 25,000. They pointed out that the herring fishing, which arose in that year, and which
    1096
    then prevented a serious crisis, was now practically destroyed by the altered conditions of the case; and the Report went on to show that the prices of stock in the island had fallen by 50 per cent since 1884. The Report also alluded to the fact that hon. Members representing crofter constituencies were opposed to emigration, or, as ho preferred to call it, colonization, and that they advocated the destruction of deer forests. As regarded the Crofter Members, he had every wish to do them justice for their sincerity of motive; but they were chiefly remarkable in that House for the difference of opinion amongst themselves when any legislation affecting crofters was proposed. The Report then went on to say, in most remarkable words, that if the whole deer forests were divided amongst the crofter population they had no capital to cultivate them, and if the necessary capital was supplied the old difficulties would recur again in a few years in an aggravated form. That seemed. absolutely conclusive against the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton. They had heard the unbiassed evidence of officials who were acquainted with the facts, and this Report was embodied in a Parliamentary Paper. He submitted that they were bound to accept that evidence as conclusive, and he reminded the House that that evidence was dead against the proposal of compulsory purchase. He could offer the State a much better bargain than compulsory purchase. The hon. Member proposed to deal with the 12,000,000 acres of the worn-out soil of this country, which could only be acquired at a ruinous price, or else by an unquestionable violation of the rights of property, where the density of the population amounted to over 300 per square mile. He (Mr. Seton-Karr) proposed to deal with 1,000,000,000 acres of foreign soil better than our own, in countries where the density of population was under two per square mile, and where the land could be acquired either for nothing, or at a nominal price—he alluded to our vast Colonial Possessions in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and at the Cape. He knew he was treading on dangerous ground. His Colonization Amendment had been ruled out of Order, and, therefore, ho would not detain the House longer. He trusted, however,

    1097
    that before the Session was out they would have some opportunity of going thoroughly into this question, because he believed that colonization rested upon a thoroughly sound financial basis. He was confident that in a wide application of the principle which was contained in the Motion—namely, a profitable use of the vast uncultivated land of this Empire—the profitable use of the broad acres of our Colonies—they would find the true remedy for the great social problems of the present day. He asked the House to remember that our Ministers were not only the Ministers of the United Kingdom but of the Empire, and that as theirs was the opportunity so theirs also was the responsibility of utilizing the resources at their command. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "whilst recogizing the fact that considerable portions of the lands of the United Kingdom, including those in a so-called vacant, waste, or uncultivated state, cannot be profitably cultivated owing to Agricultural and Industrial Depression, and are, therefore, unable to support their increasing populations, this House is of opinion that conferring powers of compulsory purchase on Local Authorities is not an effectual or desirable remedy for this state of things."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.

NINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Libraries Act, 1S55, Amendment*(82); Suffragans' Act Amendment*(S3); Lloyd's Signal Stations*(84); Fishery Acts Amendment (Ireland)*(86).
Second Reading—Duration of Speeches in Parliament(79), negatived; Westminster Abbey (57); Customs (Isle of Man)* (60).
Select Committee—Land Transfer, Lord Thurlow and Lord Henniker added.
Committee—Report—Church Discipline (27).
Third Reading—Cathedral Churches*(46), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin Markets)*(85).

ARMY (INDIA)—THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.—QUESTION.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEasked the Secretary of State for India a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether his attention had been called to a paper which had been circulated abundantly in this country with regard to certain regulations purporting to come from the office of the Quartermaster General in India concerning a subject which one almost shuddered to mention in their Lordships' House—the provision of women for our soldiers in India. Was the noble Viscount able to make any statement on the subject?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I have noticed that a very sensational paper has been extensively published containing facts which I cannot believe are true. The Bishop of Lichfield was good enough to call my attention to this matter some time ago, and I communicated with the Viceroy, who said he would make a most thorough investigation into the matter. I have received private information from the Viceroy that he has done this, but of course that private information is such that I cannot lay it before the House, because it has not come to me in an official form. No doubt it will come to me in this form, and I shall communicate the purport of it to your Lordships. What was stated by my direction in the other House was to the effect that we did not believe that the statements which appeared in that paper were true versions of the facts,
1016
but if any such practice were found to exist as detailed in the paper, we should take care to have the matter stopped.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.—(No. 27.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD COLERIDGEsaid, that an Amendment stood in his name on the Paper to the effect that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months, but as he understood that the Bill would be greatly altered by important Amendments which were to be proposed, he would not move his Amendment at that stage. He, however, reserved his right to do so when the Bill in its complete state was submitted to their Lordships.
LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, that he had been struck by some remarks made the other day by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, in which he had pointed out the inconvenience of Amendments of a complicated kind being proposed across the Table, and, therefore, he hoped that before their Lordships were asked to consider the provisions of this measure they would have the actual Bill as it was intended to be passed laid before them.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 11th instant.

DURATION OF SPEECHES IN PARLIA MENT BILL.—(No. 79.)
(The Lord Denman.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD DENMANin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he hoped that the Bill not being printed would not prevent their Lordships from giving it a second reading. Last year the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross) said it was not necessary in their Lordships' House; but an experienced reporter

1017
wrote in the Christmas number, 1884, of The English Illustrated Magazine, a description of the debates. He (Lord Denman) thought it so likely to cause offence that he bought up all the copies he could secure at the Derby Station, and at the publishers; he cut out that which might have given his neighbour (the Earl of Wemyss) pain, and sent the article to his Lordship, leaving in only that their Lordships thought him a little "verbose;" but his Lordship wrote that he had seen an "unexpurgated" copy. Certainly, last Session the noble Earl spoke for an hour and 10 minutes; and the noble Earl, on his Bill as to the constitution of the House of Lords, spoke for an hour and 40 minutes. The Bill allowed 15 minutes before the notice of time should be given. Few Lords would wish to get up to stop a speaker; but the Bill could be altered in Committee, and any Bill initiated in either house of Parliament, if agreed to by the other, became law. There had been Notice of a Bill on the subject in the House of Commons, but he had not been able to see it, although a day was appointed for its second reading. He would delay the appointment of the Committee to such a time as might suit both sides of their Lordships' House. He was no Party man, though his Father, before he became a Judge, wrote—
"I am very glad you still take The Morning Chronicle, having an unalterable attachment to old friends and old faces, which no new engagements ever efface."
The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that he was sorry, in the absence of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, to have to ask to be allowed to interpose for a short time. This Bill was absolutely unnecessary in that House, as they could regulate their proceedings by their own Standing Orders without requiring an Act of Parliament for the purpose. He did not think that they should make any attempt to regulate the proceedings of the other House of Parliament, and therefore he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
1018
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord President.)
On Question, That ("now") shall stand part of the Motion?
Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY BILL.—(No. 57.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he must express his regret that, this being a Money Bill sent up to their Lordships' House from the House of Commons, they could not reject it. It was too much to ask the Church to incur an expense of £60,000, which would have to be met out of its funds for the purpose of restoring Westminster Abbey. This was a national monument, and the expense of its restoration ought to be met out of national funds.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to the Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 81.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1855, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Public Libraries Act 1855—Was presented by The Lord Monkswell; read 1a. (No. 82.)
SUFFRAGANS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Act of the twenty-sixth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, chapter fourteen, intituled "An Act for the nomination and consecration of suffragans within this realm"—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of Carlisle; read. 1a. (No. 83.)
LLOYDS SIGNAL STATIONS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confer powers on Lloyds to take lands for signal stations; and for other purposes—Was presented by The Earl of Onslow; read 1a. (No. 84.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDER (DUBLIN MARKETS) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the providing of a market place for vegetables and fish by the Urban Sanitary Authority of the City of Dublin—Was presented by The Lord Privy Seal; read (No. 85.)
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.