Sitting of 24 April 1891

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock
QUESTIONS.

  BURNING OF VILLAGES AT MASTAON.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Times of the 22nd, stating that villages had been burned on or near the Mastaon Plateau; whether this statement is correct; and, if so, how many villages have been burned; whether these villages have been burned as a punishment or from military contingencies; and, further, if as a punishment, whether as a punishment for simple resistance or for some specific act of treachery committed by the village burned; and if the villages have been burned owing to military contingencies, would he state the nature of such contingencies, giving such data as would enable a comparison to be instituted with similar unavoidable accidents in European warfare?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Mastaon Plateau is not in Manipur, but on the Afghan frontier. The Secretary of State has not received yet such detailed information respecting the military operations in that part of India as would enable him to reply to the various points in the hon. Member's question.
  COLONEL NOLAN: When will the Secretary of State be in possession of such information?
  SIR J. GORST: My noble Friend the Secretary of State for India has the greatest confidence in the humanity and discretion of the Government of India, and he will not press them with questions which would seem to imply a want of confidence. There is no doubt that full Reports will come home in due course, by post, and when they are received they will be laid before Parliament. It will then be in the power of the hon. and gallant Member, if he wishes to find fault with the Government of India, to do so.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish for a plain answer to a plain question. When will the Secretary of State for India be in the possession of such information as will enable him to answer the question? Will it be a week hence, or a month, or how long?
  SIR J. GORST: It is obviously impossible for the Secretary of State to form any conjecture as to when the Reports may be sent to him. I think that the hon. and gallant Member ought to be much more able to form an estimate than I can.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Is it not usual to write a despatch within a week after an engagement? Is that the custom in India?
  SIR J. GORST: I am not able to answer a question as to the military customs of India without notice. I should say that the General commanding in the field would send in a Report as soon as was possible consistently with the proper discharge of his duties in the field.

  THE OPERATIONS AT MANIPUR.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will state who has given their instructions or orders to the officers commanding columns operating in Manipur; and if the conduct of all operations, civil or military, in Manipur is at present in the hands of the Military Authorities, or if civil officials exercise any authority in Manipur, or are furnished with any instructions giving them power in that district if the military operations should be successful?
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is—the Commander-in-Chief in India. The answer to the question contained in the second paragraph is that all operations in Manipur are in the hands of the Military Authorities at present.

  THE FACTORY LAWS IN INDIA.
  MR. HOWELL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will give a Return, in addition to the Return already presented to the House, showing the operation of the Factory Law in India? What I want is a Return that shall show what the alterations in the law have been.
  Sir J. GORST: The Return which I have already given to the House shows, I believe, the changes which have been made in the law, as well as the existing law.
  MR. HOWELL: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Return, I think he will find that it is only the changes in the law which are given and not a comparison between them and the law as it stood previously.
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper, I shall be happy to give him all the information he may require on any point he can suggest.

  BILLETING OF SOLDIERS.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the present rates of pay authorised to keepers of licensed houses for the board and lodging of soldiers billeted upon them; at what period such rates of pay were originally decided upon, and whether they have of late years been revised or altered; and whether, before he next introduces the Army Act for renewal, he will consider the expediency of either improving the present rates of pay or extending the obligation to receive soldiers and their horses to the houses of any other persons besides those enumerated in Section 104 of 44 and 45 Vic. c. 58?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,: The sum paid to the innkeeper until 1868 was 10d., from which sum it was raised to 1s. 4d. in 1873, and has remained at that amount since. From the known cost of supplies, which have fallen since 1873, there is every reason to believe that this sum affords a fair profit to the innkeeper, and the only complaint received has been from one innkeeper, who complained that he had been struck off the list for billets. The Secretary of State does not propose to introduce any change in the Army Act.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Mr. John Burnett, the Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade, is appointed one of the Joint Secretaries to the Royal Commission on Labour; and whether, in
  1320
  view of the fact that the work of the Labour Bureau is much in arrear, the Reports for 1889 not having yet been issued, some substitute for Mr. Burnett, or temporary helper in that work, has been or is about to be appointed in that office?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: Mr. John Burnett, Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade, has been appointed one of the Joint Secretaries to the Royal Commission on Labour, and the President of the Board of Trade will doubtless provide Mr. Burnett with assistance in the work of the Labour Bureau if it is found that he requires it.

  SAMOA.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any anticipation of trouble at Samoa in connection with Mataafa's succession to King Malietoa; and, if so, whether steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to meet it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS(Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The most recent reports received from Samoa are satisfactory, and do not lead us to anticipate any trouble.

  THE PORTUGUESE IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received from the Portuguese Government any complaints of a violation of the modus vivendi on the part of the agents of the Chartered South African Company; whether specific complaints have been made of the imprisonment and deportation of Portuguese Officers by the agents of the company; and, if so, what reply has been made to the complaints; whether Masse Kesse is within the territory that was agreed to be within the Portuguese sphere by the modus vivendi, and whether its occupation by the agents of the company constitutes a violation of the stutus quo agreed to in that instrument; and whether the company has obtained the permission of Her Majesty's Government to exercise

  1321
  power in Manicaland; and, if not, what is the exact status of agents of the company exercising power in that territory as regards Her Majesty's Government and as regards the Portuguese Government?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: (1) Such complaints have been made, but it has not been shown in what respect the modus vivendi has been violated; (2) only one such complaint has been made referring to the reported arrest of Lieutenant Freira in January. The Company has denied the arrest, but further inquiry is being made; (3) Masse Kesse is outside the territorial limits of the British sphere indicated in the August Agreement, and it would have been a violation of the modus vivendi if Great Britain had accepted a Protectorate there, or exercised Sovereignty. There has been no such Act. There is nothing in the modus vivendi which would prevent the presence of Masse Kesse of the Company's agents. We are assured that the fact is that the Mozambique Company's vacant buildings are protected by four policemen, who have been ordered to give them up when the Portuguese arrive; (4) the Company is not exercising powers of Government in Manicaland. The Government is, by the Convention with Mutassa, expressly reserved to the Chief, with the assistance of the residents and the Company's police.

  EAST AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any application has been made to the Government by the Imperial British East Africa Company to guarantee the capital for a railroad to be made under its auspices; and whether any assurance has been given to the Company, or to anyone connected with the Company, that such a guarantee will be granted; and, if so, whether he will undertake that no definite promise will be given before the House has had au opportunity to consider its expediency?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Such an application has been made, and is under consideration. Parliamentary sanction would, of course, be required before such a guarantee can he carried into effect.

  KING JA JA.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether King Ja Ja's health has been improved by his removal to Barbados; whether any steps have been taken to enable his wife to join him there; and whether any deductions have been made from his allowance for personal expenditure since his removal from St. Vincent?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The reports of Ja Ja's health are not good, and as the administrative Staff for the Oil Rivers Commission is now organised and the Commissioner will shortly start for his post, he has been informed, with the Commissioner's approval, that he will be permitted to return at once to Opobo. It is understood that the wife refused to accompany him to Barbados or to Opobo. We are not aware of any deductions from the allowance.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Return relating, to Enforced Sales in Cyprus, ordered on the 25th July last, has not yet been rendered; and when it will be laid upon the Table?
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): The materials for a Return in the terms of the Address were received some time ago; but would have been of little value without further particulars which have been asked for and promised. The delay in sending the further particulars is due to the fact that there is a scarcity of public officers. In the meantime, I can show the hon. Member what information we have.

  PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the overwhelming majority by which the Motion for the Second Reading of the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill was carried, and of the technical character of the Amendments which are likely to be made in its provisions in Committee, he would be

  1323
  willing to agree to a Motion to refer it to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Unless it is the unanimous wish of the House it is not usual to refer a private Member's Bill to a Select Committee, such reference being confined to Government measures. The question is, therefore, essentially one for the decision of the House, as the Government have no particular interest in the Bill to which the hon. Member refers.

  FEVER AT RANAFAST.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to his statement on Thursday last, that fever does not exist in Ranafast, and that, though an outbreak of scarlatina had occurred in the Dungloe Dispensary District, it was practically over on the 25th March, whether he is aware that the dispensary doctor did attend 11 cases of fever in Ranafast on the 21st instant, eight of them being scarlet fever cases; and that two brothers from a neighbouring town- land, who died suddenly of scarlatina, were buried on the 21st instant; whether, seeing that his previous information was incorrect, lie will cause further inquiry to be made through fresh channels; and whether he requires to see the doctor's certificates in confirmation of the above statements?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The statement which I made last week gave correctly what had occurred up to that time. I have now called for a further Report.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: My hon. Friend will repeat the question on Monday.

  LAND COMMISSION—WEXFORD.
  MR. J. BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Chief Land Commission has appointed 3rd June next to hear appeals from the decisions of the Sub-Commission for County Wexford; if he is aware that there are upwards of 100 appeals listed from the Poor Law Union of Wexford alone, and, whether, considering the enormous expense and inconvenience of bringing the tenants and their witnesses to Dublin, he would suggest to the Land Commission the
  1324
  desirability of hearing these appeals in the Assise town of Wexford.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question is down without Notice, and I have not been able to obtain the necessary information to enable me to answer it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to repeat it.

  OLDPARK, BELFAST.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury is he aware that Mr. E. Murphy, Arbitrator to the Local Government Board, sat on the 1st June to hear claims for compensation re the Belfast Water Commissioners and property owners and occupiers in Oldpark, near Belfast; that the final hearing of objections was held on 28th October, 1890, and the final award only made on 6th April, 1891; whether Mr. Murphy lodged a copy of this final award with the solicitors for the Water Commissioners two months before it was signed by him for the purpose of enabling the Water Commissioners to consult Counsel with reference to the Act, which came into force on 1st April, 1889; and if any complaints have reached the Government with reference to the alleged delay in the publication of the award and the small amount of compensation given to property owners and others in Oldpark, Belfast?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I answered this question yesterday. It was put by one of the hon. Gentleman's Colleagues.
  MR. BLANE: I am sorry to say that I did not hear the answer.
  MR. JACKSON: Nevertheless, it was answered.

  INLAND REVENUE COLLECTIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the out-door super visors of Inland Revenue in the " collection " which comprises the City and County of Dublin, as well as portions of the Counties of Wicklow, Wexford, Kildare, Meath, and Carlow, are compelled by the extensive character of their duties to work from 10 to 12 hours on week days, and often to work on Sundays also; and whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have described the outdoor

  1325
  supervisors as their most important officers, they being solely responsible to the Exchequer for the due and proper charging of the Excise Revenue; and, if so, will he direct the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to investigate the circumstances of their position with a view to increasing the staff of out-door supervisors for the Dublin collection.
  MR. JACKSON: I answered this question also yesterday.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland intends to include the Labourers' Dwellings (Ireland) Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I believe that is the intention of the Government. I do not know that it is the most satisfactory mode of procedure, but it is evidently impossible to bring in an Amendment Act, and we cannot allow the existing Act to drop.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Is it intended to take the Land Purchase Bill on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it will be more satisfactory if it is postponed until Tuesday. The Budget Resolutions will be taken on Monday, and some smaller matters afterwards.

  EAST INDIA (SALARIES).
  Address for—
  " Return of the number of all persons who received from the Revenues of India, during the year 1889-90, Annual Allowances (whether in the form of salary, pay, fees, emoluments, or pensions), of which the amount was not less than 1,000 rupees for each person; distinguishing the number of persons and total amount received in each class; and showing whether they were Europeans, Eurasians, or Natives of India, and whether resident or not resident in India."—(Mr. Keay.)

  PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 248.)
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 111.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 39, after " holding," insert " or from the guarantee deposit."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I accept the Amendment, modified so as to provide that all sums carried to the account in respect of the redemption of the purchase annuity, whether received from the proprietor of the holding, or upon the sale of the holding, or from the guarantee deposit, and also all other moneys carried to the land purchase account, shall be paid to the Sinking Fund.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.40.) Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, after " Act," leave out " any residue," and insert " all other moneys carried to the Land Purchase Account."
    Question, " That the words any residue' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, " That the words any other moneys carried to the Land Purchase Account' be inserted," put, and agreed to.
    The next Amendment stood in the name of Mr. BLANE, and it was as follows:—To add at the end of the clause—
    " Provided always, that the Trish Land Commission may applot the purchase money and annual instalments for any labourer's holding or homestead situated on any tenement purchased under the provisions of this Act, in the same way and manner as may be done by the Irish Land Commission in the case of a tenancy purchased under the powers of " The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," and subsequent Acts amending the same, and upon the full discharge of such annual payments by such labourer in occupation, he shall be deemed the owner of such holding."
    Colonel NOLAN rose to address the Committee upon the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! This Amendment is not appropriate to the clause.
    Question proposed, " That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. KEAY: I beg to move the omission of the clause as a protest against Sub-section 3, whereby one-half of the consequences of a default on the part of the tenant of a holding are thrown upon the locality. I regard the sub-section as containing a most iniquitous provision. There is an absolute unanimity of opinion among the Irish Members against it, and I do not think that even from the landlord element on the other side of the House there has been a distinct protest against the views expressed here.
    COLONED WARING: The landlords have had no wish to endanger the passing of the Bill.
    MR. KEAY: Although they may have a desire to pass the Bill quickly we are fairly entitled to assume that their silence means consent to the equity of the case we have urged.
    COLONEL WARING: Then I hope the hon. Member will disabuse his mind of that impression. He must not assume anything of the sort.
    MR. KEAY: I am glad to find that there is nothing like an expression of opinion on the other side of the House against the equity of our case, and I gladly welcome the interruption. The Government have refused to give way upon this point. They consider that one half of the burden should be borne by the localities, on the ground that the localities ought to have a large interest in the fulfilment of their obligations by the tenants. I was much surprised to hear the remarks of the Chief Secretary to this effect, because if they mean anything at all they seem to me to point to boycotting. He threatens the locality with a pecuniary loss in case of a single tenant becoming a defaulter.
    (2.47.): Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. KEAY: I want the Chief Secretary to satisfy my conscience in regard to this matter, which simply means the boycotting of a number of innocent ratepayers for the default of
    1328
    one man. My principal objection to the clause, however, is that it is an attempt to improve the position of the landlord at the expense of the locality, and unless I get some further assurance from the Government, I shall certainly divide the Committee against the clause.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I hope that my hon. Friend will not divide the Committee. I agree with everything he has said in regard to the landlords' guarantee deposit not being made wholly available to meet any default. I believe that that is a great flaw in the Bill; but the point is one which has been adequately discussed in previous Sittings, and, therefore, with all due respect, I hope my hon. Friend will not take up time that may be devoted to other good and valued points.
    MR. SEXTON: I wish to support the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. Unquestionably, if the clause had remained in anything like the form in which it was introduced. I should have felt it my duty to vote against it; but I think that an important concession has been made. At the same time, I must protest against a provision which limits the landlord's liability to one-half of the guarantee deposit.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Keay) has fought the Bill inch by inch, and he is quite consistent in his objections to this clause; but I think he would act gracefully if he were now to yield to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Morley). No doubt the clause is bad, and I hope it may still be amended, but if the hon. Member goes on at the same rate his valuable lectures on finance will take up two volumes of Hansard. The volumes will doubtless form amusing reading for those who are interested in the subject, and especially for the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who has taken the hon. Member for Elgin as his financial adviser.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. and gallant Member has given a singular reason for voting in favour of the clause. He considers that it is a thoroughly bad clause and he hopes that it may be amended on the Report. I trust that before the discussion is closed the Chief Secretary

    1329
    will inform the hon. and gallant Member whether he intends to bring in another Bill or to amend the Bill now before the Committee. So far as the clause itself is concerned I take a large and broad view of the subject, but I am confronted with this difficulty—that the clause conflicts with the principle of the Bill. As I understand the Bill it is intended to carry out the Ashbourne Act, but we now find that the landlord is to be relieved of a considerable share of the liability which is imposed on him by the Ashbourne Act. I am sorry to differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle. My right hon. Friend takes the same view as I do as to the pernicious character of the clause, but on a point of procedure he thinks that having voted against the pecuniary part of the clause we ought now to accept the proposal of the Government. Now, think that if there is any part of the clause that is so objectionable that it will do violence to our principles we ought to vote against it. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him. I regret that I was not in the House in time to move my Amendment as to total capital loss in case of forced sale, and I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if he will propose some way of preventing injustice being done to the Local Authorities.
    MR. KNOX: I hope the hon. Member will not divide against the clause, but I wish to point out that on Lord Waterford's estates holdings have been sold in a case of default, subject to a reduced annuity. No doubt it is much easier to sell a holding subject to a reduced annuity than for the Commission to keep it in hand and work the farm. At present the Land Commissioners have no power, without consent, to apply the principal of the Guarantee Fund to the redemption of capital loss in such a case.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member somewhat misunderstands the state of the law. Under the existing law, and under this Bill, it will not be possible for the Land Commissioners to sell a holding subject to a reduced annuity. It is therefore unnecessary to alter the Bill to meet such a case. If the Bill
    1330
    passes , the landlord will take his share of loss as represented by a diminished annuity. If the Land Bill (No. 2) passes there is a provision to enable the Land Commissioners to sell at a reduced rate and to make the landlord bear his share of the reduced annuities.
    MR. KNOX: Then how is it that the Land Commissioners have actually sold holdings subject to a reduced annuity? Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that their action in such a case has been illegal?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At the present moment I have no doubt that it is not competent for them to sell a holding subject to a reduced annuity. It is not necessary therefore to provide for a case which cannot arise.
    MR. STOREY: I think the hon. Member for Northampton has made out a clear case of objecting to the principle of the Bill, but as the second clause only deals with the machinery of the measure I do not see that there is any necessity for prolonging the discussion upon it. But for matters in which I am privately concerned I should have been in my place earlier to oppose the principle of the Bill.
    MR. KEAY: I am unwilling to put the Committee to any unnecessary trouble, but I feel compelled to call pointed attention to the fact that the Chief Secretary has doggedly refused to say a word on the only question I raised in moving the rejection of the clause. I asked him what he means by this system of pressure on the localities, unless he means an incitement to boycott the defaulter, and the right hon. Gentleman, by his persistent silence, is himself the person who is prolonging the Debate. On every occasion on which I have brought forward what have been admitted to be important points, the right hon. Gentleman has refused doggedly to reply to them. He has just replied to my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Knox), but he has made no reply to me. Under these circumstances, unless I can get the right hon. Gentleman to do his duty I do not see how I can avoid dividing the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMANput the Question, " That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and declared that the " Ayes " had it.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to protest. I said " No " most distinctly.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Gentleman acquiesced.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: No, Mr. Courtney.
    Question again put.
    (3.9.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 44.—(Div. List, No. 150.)
    (3.20.) Clause 3 (Establishment of Guarantee Fund).
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move as a protest against the proposed guarantee an Amendment, which provides that " contingent " shall be substituted for " guarantee " fund. The clause provides for and defines a local guarantee to which, as the Chief Secretary knows, we are irreconcilably opposed. We protest against the guarantee, first because we think that, as this is an Imperial scheme, it ought to be founded on Imperial responsibility; secondly because the Government have means enough in their hands to make everything safe without a local guarantee; and thirdly because they have no right, against the will of the Representatives of Ireland, to pass a scheme which may ultimately have the effect of heavily mulcting the people of Ireland in reference to things over which they will have no control; and lastly because farmers who pay their own debts will be made liable for those of defaulting tenants. The Irish Members will take their objection at the proper time by voting against the clause. In the meantime the question before the Committee has reference to the details of the clause and the possible amendment of those details, and with the view of making substantial progress I have put down Amendments with the object of submitting an alternative scheme which I think worthy of consideration, and the acceptance of which will dispose of a great number of Amendments. In the first place I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman as to the division of the Guarantee Fund into contingent portions. It is an unreal distinction. All funds are equally " cash" and equally " contingent." The effect of taking the Probate Duty grants will be that the local rates in Ireland will have to be raised by £250,000, or on the average 8d. in the £1. I greatly
    1332
    doubt whether in the present condition of Ireland it can stand that augmentation of rates. I am willing that the Exchequer contribution should be taken at once and put into the Guarantee Fund, because it has not been definitely applied to any Public Service in Ireland, and existing arrangements would be disturbed. In the case of exceptional agricultural distress, the Reserve Fund could be applied to the relief of such distress. I therefore ask that in any year any default may be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, as a temporary advance, and that the local finance may not be deranged for that year by taking away the Probate Duty in anticipation of the default. At the end of the year, when it is known precisely what default has arisen, the actual loss to the Consolidated Fund could be recouped from the Probate Duty of the next year. For many years to come there could not possibly be a default exceeding the amount of the Exchequer contribution. The proposal does not conflict with any principle of the Bill or derange any of its machinery. Next, I take exception to the particular funds to be drawn upon in order to constitute the Guarantee Fund; and my Amendment substitutes alternative funds without effecting any alteration in the total capital sum. These alterations will, I believe, make the Bill more acceptable in Ireland. I propose to leave out of the clause as it now stands the sum paid for the care of the insane and the destitute sick poor in Ireland. These services must be continued whatever the cost may be. The Chief Secretary will admit that if an adequate substitute for this sum can be provided it ought to be provided. In place of it the Amendment substitutes the grants in aid of Queen's Colleges in Ireland. Primary education, after all, claims the attention of Parliament before University education, and if it were tolerable that the funds provided by Parliament for primary education should, even in theory, be hypothecated for the guarantee, there can be no objection to the hypothecation of the grants in aid of University education. Secondly, I propose to take, instead of the fund for the expenses of [the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, the whole Votes for national education. If the right hon. Gentleman sees his way to

    1333
    accept my Amendment, which, in my judgment does not conflict with the principle of his Bill, I think he will find that the number of Amendments moved on the clause will be very greatly reduced.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, ^after the word " a " to insert the word "contingent."-(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, " That the word contingent ' be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has with great lucidity explained the very important Amendment he has placed on the Paper, and let me say at once that of some of his remarks I entirely approve. His main reason for objecting to the retention of the cash portion, I understand to be this, that if it be retained, it will delay the distribution among various localities ultimately entitled to it, and the delay will disturb the whole course of local finance for a year. I think if that were the effect of the clause, there would be very substantial ground for his criticism. But the payment into the Guarantee Fund of the Irish Probate Duty grant would, unless that grant were required to meet the deficiency, involve the payment to the various authorities of the sums to which they are entitled. That is distinctly the interpretation put on the clause by the Government, and therefore the criticism of the hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. The hon. Gentleman asks me on what we base the distinction between the cash portion and the guarantee portion. I take it that it is very necessary that there should be in the hands of the Exchequer a certain amount of money, not necessarily to meet permanent default, but to meet temporary default. He has stated with truth that it is a serious matter to touch the contributions from the Imperial Exchequer with regard to pau per lunatics and the sick poor. He and I are agreed that it is scarcely conceivable that the securities which are antecedent to the contingent portion of the fund will not prove sufficient. He states that public opinion will be shocked even by seeing the amounts for pauper lunatics named as part of the contingent security, and he prefers that the money granted for the support of the Queen's Colleges and certain portions of the money now given
    1334
    for elementary education in Ireland should be included in the contingent portion of the fund. The principles which have governed our selection of the contingent portion of the fund have led to the exclusion by us of everything not purely local in its character. We think that neither the Queen's Colleges nor the salaries and expenses of the education officers in Dublin can properly be defined as local. Though it may be said that the Queen's Colleges are mainly of interest to the towns and localities in which they are situated, the officers connected with them in Dublin and the educational machinery are of interest equally to every county and the whole of Ireland. It is clear you cannot touch the salaries of civil servants, and the officers in the Central Office in Dublin are civil servants. The Queen's Colleges are situated in three cities in Ireland, two of which are excluded altogether from the operation of this Bill, namely, those in Cork and Belfast. The College in Galway supplies not only Galway but a large district, and persons even go from Ulster and Munster to take advantage of the grants given to the College. It would, therefore, be impossible to give the Colleges the local significance that is given to all the other fends we take for the guarantee. Moreover, the professors of the Queen's Colleges are civil servants, and I find they come under the Minute of the Superannuation Department of the Treasury. So much for the alteration the hon. Gentleman desires to make in the substantial constituents of the contingent portion of the Guarantee Fund. Now, as to what lie has said as to the order in which the grants should be taken, we can have no special objection to the alteration he proposes; but 1 think he is under a misapprehension. He seems to think that the order in which these various matters are mentioned in the clause governs the order in which the funds will be seized for the purpose of meeting default; but as a matter of fact, the order will depend upon the rules.
    MR. SEXTON: I am aware of that, but I desire in my Amendments to indicate the order.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member has strong views on the point, and is fortified by the views of the Committee, I do not know that the Government

    1335
    need entertain any serious objection. In regard to labourers' cottages, I think we ought to move cautiously in the matter. No use whatever has been made of the money placed to the credit of certain counties, especially in the North of Ireland. I have a full Report of what has been done, and I gather from it that that is the case. To add another £40,000 to the Labourers' Cottages Fund, especially when unaccompanied by qualifying conditions in Clause 2, would be a very serious matter. As the hon. Member knows, I am entirely in accord with him in urgently desiring to see the agricultural labourers of Ireland better housed, but it would be disastrous to localities to build in them labourers' cottages which are not required by the necessities of the case. I am unwilling to hastily accept the proposal.
    MR. SEXTON: I have no desire that an undue number of labourers' cottages should be built in Ireland, but I think the money should be so applied in cases where bonâ fide agricultural labourers pay excessive rents for miserable hovels, which are a disgrace to civilisation and destructive of the health of their occupants. I am quite willing to fall in with any arrangement or provision to prevent the misapplication of funds; but if a proper authority in Ireland should think that the money might be wisely spent in the direction I have referred to, I think it should be done.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member, as I understand him, would involve a serious departure from the clause, which merely deals with the funds which have been captured, so to speak, and are already destined to certain uses. The hon. Member proposes to alter the destination of funds, already appropriated in a particular direction.
    MR. SEXTON: That is hardly the case, for the Exchequer contribution has not yet been definitely applied to any purpose. The case is open, and I wish to define what it shall be.
    COLONEL NOLAN: If I thought there was even the slightest chance of the fund for medical officers and the kindred funds ever being called on I should regard the Bill as doing more harm than good. But I do not believe that. I believe these things are
    1336
    put in to give a general notion of security to the English electors. [Laughter.] Yes, I look on them as unnecessary, but I do not object to their insertion as I am confident they will never be reached. As to the Queen's, Colleges, it would be very hard if the Galway College were taken and the other two were left out. I should vote against the Galway College being) made a cock-shy of under this Bill. So far as I understand the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast this sum should accumulate instead of being distributed each year, and should then be handed over to the Labourers' Cottages Fund, while in the Bill it is proposed that the money shall be distributed in the first place for labourers' cottages, wherever they are wanted.
    MR. SEXTON: No, no.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Under the Bill as amended in the second clause.
    MR. SEXTON: No.
    COLONEL NOLAN: That is my construction of the matter.
    MR. SEXTON: The second clause deals with a different fund.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The £40,000 a year the hon. Member wishes to vote for labourers' cottages in places where they are required, some of it to go to Unions where they are not required. Well, the Labourers' Act as at present drawn is of very little use. If the Act were drawn so that you could repair and build cottages for the small tenants it would be useful; but as it stands at present the only use is to create an artificial class of tenants to compete with the small fenants—to build houses for competitors of the small tenants at great expense. Wherever the cottages are not required the money should go in aid of the local rates.
    MR. MAHONY: From his observations I gather that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not disinclined to make concessions on this point, especially as the £40,000, if not required for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages, will go as proposed in relief of taxation. The substantial matter in the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast is founded on his fear that the financial arrangement come to will be disarranged by the payment to the Guarantee Fund, and I understand that the Chief Secretary

    1337
    thinks the Bill is drawn in such a way that this disarrangement will not take place. It appears to me that the objection of my hon. Friend would be met if the Chief Secretary would agree to these Words—
    " The cash portion of the Guarantee Fund, so far as it is not required at the date of its payment into that fund in any financial year, shall be forthwith applied as follows."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is only referring to the Probate Duty grant.
    MR. MAHONY: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the Bill will secure what we want without Amendment, but we are in doubt about it.
    MR. SEXTON: As the matter stands at present I cannot accept the statement of the Chief Secretary that there is no danger of the funds being withheld. It is provided that the Probate Duty grant shall be paid into the fund each year, there to await default if on the year's financial transactions default is found to exist. It is evident that the Probate Duty will remain in the fund a year, waiting to see if there is default, but what I want is that this money should be paid as at present, and then, at the end of the year, if there is a default, that the necessary amount should be taken out of the fund for the next year. In this way the Local Services in Ireland would not be interfered with. In regard to the order in which the items should stand, though the matter is not one of great practical importance, I think that in Acts of Parliament we should have regard to seemliness.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I shall have a difficulty in voting for the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast, because, although I think that in some respects it is an excellent one, it seems to put the cart before the horse. The first point to decide is whether we should call upon the Irish to incur this liability, and when that has been settled by a decision of the House, we should go into matters of detail such as are raised by my hon. Friend. As I take objection to the principle, I am not prepared to vote that there should be any sort of Guarantee Fund of this nature. In the first place, I do not see anyone present who could pledge what
    1338
    are 'practically the local rates of Ire land.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Why should we not pledge them?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Member belongs to a small and unimportant section of the Irish Members, who would find it quite impossible to pledge themselves, even if backed by the hon. Member for Meath. I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast does not recognise the principle of pledging the local rates, which is in direct opposition to the views of the majority of the National Party. Therefore, we have no guarantee that these local rates, if the tenants do not pay, will stand between the British taxpayer and their liability. No one has any right to pledge those rates, and the Representatives of Parliament have received no mandate from their constituents to pledge the local rates for this particular purpose. It depends upon the inhabitants of the locality what shall be done with the rates. The Chief Secretary is one of those generous gentlemen who spend for their own objects moneys that do not belong to them. The Whole thing is an utter sham. The object was to find £1,200,000 in order to persuade the British taxpayer that if merely that was capitalised there would be something really tangible which would prevent any liability falling upon him owing to the pledge that he gave. I need not say that is all nonsense. I regard these different items of the Reserve Fund in the same light as the fine crusted port, or the Old Masters, or the paving stones that the usurer trys to palm off upon some silly person who falls into his hands, and calls them "cash." I hope the House does not accept seriously the fact that there is an additional security standing between the British taxpayer and this liability, owing to these particular rates. Take the rates for education, lunatics, or medical officers. You cannot alienate them or you would stop the Local Government of Ireland. I have heard of a savage ruler who kept wild and fierce animals caged, ready to be let loose upon the people if they did not pay. Here you are to have the lunatics turned loose upon Ireland. You know perfectly well that nothing of the kind will occur. No House of Commons would incur the responsibility

    1339
    of interfering with the care of lunatics, with education, or with medical officers. If such a proposal as this were made for England there would be an uproar. I really could not vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I suggest that he withdraw it, and allow us to vote upon the Amendment to leave out " the cash and contingent." If we are beaten, as we shall be beaten, then we could go into details on these different guarantees.
    MR. KNOX: The object of my hon. Friend is to get something in the way of reasonable Amendment without pledging himself to the principle of local guarantees, which we object to in toto. I am afraid, the Chief Secretary having refused any concessions to my hon. Friend, that there is nothing for us but to fight this clause throughout; but I hope there is still some chance of the Government recognising the reasonableness of the course proposed by my hon. Friend.;So far as I can understand the distinction between the " cash and contingent " funds, it is a distinction drawn for convenience of drafting, and the cash portion is not to be a cash portion at all, save in name. If this is so, it ought to be made clear, and words inserted to prevent the cash portion from being detained in the Guarantee Fund after it ought to be paid over to the Local Authorities. The Bill, as it now stands, leaving the order in which the contingent portion of the fund is to be called on in the discretion of the Lord. Lieutenant, gives an amount of power to the Castle officials which the House ought not to repose in them, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I think, is infinitely preferable to the proposal of the Government. Then, as to the order in which the funds in the cash portion are to be called upon, we are not told whether the county percentage is to be used before calling upon the Probate Duty or the Exchequer Contribution. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is to enable the House to say which portion of the cash as well as contingent funds is to be taken first, second, or third. As the Bill is drafted it is impossible to know in which order the funds will be taken. In not accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment, it would seem that the Government are not anxious to facilitate the discussion of this matter, and we will, therefore, be
    1340
    compelled to fight the various portions of this clause.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have listened to the arguments in favour of the Amendment, and with some of them I agree, and I do not think there is any great difference between us. There are three matters on which I am prepared to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman. The first relates to the danger which the hon. Member fears if the Bill remains in its present state, and in order to meet his view I shall, on the Report stage, bring forward an Amendment with a view to securing that payment to the Local Authorities shall only be withheld if default was made antecedent to the day at which payment to the Local Authorities was due.
    MR. SEXTON: Only the amount of the default.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. The second point to which the hon. Member called attention was as to the order in which the contingent portion of the fund is mentioned in the second sub-section. I have no objection to altering the order to meet his view, and, therefore, that will become a matter of practical politics. I do not think it is very material, but I defer to the voice of hon. Members opposite. The third point relates to labourers' cottages, and as to this my lion. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has drawn up an Amendment which will come under sub-head A of Sub-section 2 of the clause. It will, I think, carry out the view of the hon. Member for West Belfast, though I cannot accept the Amendment which is on the Paper.
    MR. SEXTON: I believe the right hon. Gentleman's promise effectually provides that there shall be no disturbance of the Local Service in Ireland by reason of the Local Guarantee Fund. The right hon. Gentleman also agrees to take the contingent securities in a different order. Of course I retain my objection to the principle of a local guarantee, but I am so sensible of the extent of the right hon. Gentleman's concessions that I will not press this Amendment, nor will I move the next Amendment.
    MR. STOREY: My hon. Friend seems to be satisfied with very little. He must still, however, reckon with the fact that some of us in England object to this arrangement. As I under

    1341
    stand the offer of the Secretary for Ireland it is this, that he promises not to dislocate Irish local finance by retaining the local Probate Duty in the future, except to the extent of the antecedent defaults. How does that differ from the words in the Bill? The words in the Bill at the present time mean this and this only. My hon. Friend has got no concession whatever.
    MR. SEXTON: I think I have.
    MR. STOREY: Well, when doctors disagree who shall settle the matter? I apply common sense to the clause and say that the concession which the Irish Secretary has made just now is precisely on all fours with the clause of the Bill as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman also makes a concession about cottages. He proposes that the Exchequer contribution, if not needed for the Guarantee Fund, shall be applied to the provision of labourers' cottages in the Irish counties. Under this concession you might have this condition of things, that actually there would be a necessity for money to meet some deficiency, and yet the deficiency could not be met because the money was being applied to the building of labourers' cottages. In other words, the money that was to secure English credit against default is to be applied to the building of labourers' cottages.
    MR. SEXTON: It is only when every possible claim for deficiency has been met that the claim for labourers' cottages is to be made.
    MR. STOREY: Well, if my hon. Friend is content with the provision, I have no reason to be otherwise. As to the Amendment to the whole clause, I was going to vote in favour of it because I thought it was better on the whole than the Government proposal; but I must say that both proposals seem to be very objectionable from my point of view. I cannot understand the methods of the Irish Secretary in this matter. He is proposing an Imperial scheme, actuated by great Imperial purposes, and for great Imperial ends, and then instead of proposing a Guarantee Fund out of the Imperial Exchequer he goes to Ireland and seeks in all the holes and corners of the land for petty sums in order to present them to us as possible guarantees. Why did he not go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night
    1342
    and say, " I have a great Imperial purpose to carry out in Ireland and it does not become a great nation like ours to go peddling about Ireland seeking for Guarantee Funds. Let me put down £1,000,000 right away and have a Guarantee Fund that will meet all contingencies." I do not say I should have voted for such a proposal; I must have voted against it; but I am looking at it from his point of view. He actually proposes that we should obtain guarantees from the funds applied to the maintenance of pauper lunatics, to the salaries of schoolmasters and masters of workhouses, to the cost of medicine for the sick poor, and so on. When we say, " You do not mean to toll us that any Government would be mean enough to take this money and allocate it as proposed in the Bill," what does he say? When it was suggested that to take the Irish Probate Duty grant would be to discolate local finance, the right hon. Gentleman said "The localities will not suffer by our keeping the Probate Duty." Why will they not suffer? If he keeps it they must suffer. If they will not suffer he does not propose to take it at all.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has quite mistaken my meaning.
    MR. STOREY: I am sorry if I have mistaken his meaning, but that is certainly how I viewed the matter. What answer did he make when it was suggested it would be shabby to take the money for pauper lunatics, and so forth? He said it was scarcely conceivable that the antecedent guarantees would not be sufficient. Quite so; and if the antecedent guarantees are sufficient, why does he come before the House and the public, and put in small make-shifts of guarantees which he never means to realise? My feeling about this clause is simply this: I would have voted with much more willingness for a Bill to create a peasant proprietary in Ireland if there had been a Ministry that had boldly come forward and said " We are going to do this thing because it is a national thing, and we are going to do it in a national way." But when, in addition to a proposal from which I dissent, the Government come to the House, and in this peculiar way of theirs suggest to the British public all sorts of guarantees,

    1343
    when they know they are not real and tangible guarantees, I must say they add meanness to that policy, and it is my duty to oppose this clause and any succeeding clause which gives effect to it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I should like to move the next Amendment formally, so as to have it on record, and then to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3; line 1, to leave out all after "Fund," to end of Clause, and insert "consisting of the following sums to be paid into the Fund, in the order stated, if and when and to the extent required in pursuance of this Act in any financial year:—

    (i.) the Exchequer contribution hereinafter mentioned and the reserve fund constituted thereout;

    (ii.) the Irish Probate Duty Grant;

    (iii.) the Irish share of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Grant; and

    (iv.) the following local grants, that is to say, the grants

    (a.) for rates and contributions in lieu of rates on Government property in Ireland;

    (b.) in aid of the maintenance of the Queen's College in Ireland;

    (c.) to defray the expenses of national education in Ireland; and

    (d.) in aid of industrial schools in Ireland.

    (2.) A sum of forty thousand pounds (in this Act described as the Exchequer contribution) shall in every financial year be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and the said sum shall be carried to a reserve fund until the sum of two hundred thousand pounds has been so carried; and so far as it is not required for that purpose shall be paid, in the same proportion as if it were the part of the Irish probate duty grant divisible between boards of guardians of the poor in Ireland, to the said boards to be applied in providing labourers' cottages under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts 1883 to 1886.
    (3) The guarantee fund shall be under the direction of the Treasury.—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words That under the direction of the Treasury' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MAHONY: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland Mr. Storey) in his objection to the use of Irish credit, but we have already had discussed that subject on Clause 1, and I do not see what useful purpose can be secured by re-opening the matter on Clause 3. We could urge special objections against many of these forms of guarantees, but the Chief Secretary has, on the whole, made very substantial
    1344
    concessions. I hope we shall quickly come to a decision. I, personally, do not intend to move any of the Amendments which stand in my name.
    COLONEL NOLAN: At present a portion of the Probate Duty is devoted to Poor Law purposes. It is to be put into the cash account, and then to overflow to the Poor Law Unions. Am I to understand that until there is a deficiency caused by some tenant not paying, the Poor Law Unions will not only receive the same sum as now, but receive it quickly?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; that is substantially the intention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KEAY: My hon. Friend the Member for Meath has just told us he does not intend to move any of his Amendments, and would lead us to believe that in his judgment the fight, so far as the Irish Members are concerned, is all over. But I understand that, on the contrary, the fight has to begin upon my Amendment. I view this Amendment from a financial point of view, and I may add from a British point of view. I do not intend to enter into the question of the incidence of the alleged Irish guarantees on Irish social and political life, but to speak of them as a security, as a form of protection, to the British taxpayer. I decline to recognise them or to have anything to do with them as a security, unless they fulfil one necessary condition. A Guarantee Fund is only created, and ought only to be created, for one honest object. There should be grouped together funds of a class or classes which can be easily and readily arrested for the purpose of covering any default which may have been made. I hold strongly that this Guarantee Fund is useless, because you cannot collect it when you want it. I do not now propose to leave out both the cash and contingent portions of the Guarantee Fund; but only the latter portion. I consider the collection or retention, or interception of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund for the purpose of meeting a default to be a conceivable supposition; but I hold it to be altogether inconceivable that local grants in aid of local purposes could possibly be intercepted. It is not without

    1345
    reason that all these ridiculous claims are going to be made upon the Irish localities by Her Majesty's Government. The reason of it all is, that under the construction of this Bill, for every £40,000 which they can get swept into the Guarantee Fund they can lend another million sterling to their hungry friends the landlords. I propose to retain the cash portion in the fund, and to move to omit the contingent portion. The financial effect of that will be this: The cash portion comes in round numbers to about £300,000 a year. According to the Government scheme the amount of the Bill will be 25 times £300,000, in other words it will be about 7 ½millions. Each of the Ashbourne Acts was put forward with £5,000,000 only in it, and I think that if the cash portion is reserved, and if 25 times that portion is capitalised and paid over to the landlords, it is quite enough to carry out the real purpose of the Government, which is to furnish ample funds to their own immediate friends and supporters among the Irish landlords. I, therefore, move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment to leave out the contingent portion to which I think there are greater objections.
    MR. KEAY: Perhaps I had better let the words stand.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, to leave out the words " consisting of a cash portion and a contingent portion.—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, " That the words consisting of a cash portion ' stand part of the clause."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I could not vote for omitting the words " the cash portion," but I should be prepared to vote for leaving out " the contingent portion." I do not think it would be possible, under any circumstances, for the Government to withhold the funds which go to the rateyayers in respect of criminal lunatic asylums and education. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment, and allow the hon. Member for Northampton to move his Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I put the question in such a way so as to save the subsequent Amendment.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I object to both portions, but I object to them on different grounds. My reason for objecting to the cash portion, is that it is practically a fund which is obtained from Ireland itself. The proposal as to the cash portion is an attack upon the rights of the localities, and Irish localities have the same rights as any localities in England. According to the Budget last night, Ireland is to receive certain sums. We should have no right to take it away from Ireland unless we withdrew it equally from England. We could acquire that right if we were able to say that the Members for Ireland had a distinct mandate from their constituents; but I do not understand them to pretend that they have that mandate to give it up absolutely. In fact they say just the reverse. And again, it is impossible to tell whether Ireland will continue to contribute this £40,000 for 49 years. We have just read a second time a Sunday Closing Bill for the country, and it may be that some day we shall pass a Bill closing the licensed houses on every other day as well. It may be that Ireland may not drink whisky for 49 years. Yet by this we are pledging them to go on drinking it for all these years. Surely the hon. Member for South Tyrone will not assent to that. He is continually going about the country, urging the Irish not to drink whisky, and thus provide the money; and yet, if he supports this proposal, he will be calmly hypothecating the money obtained from the consumption of whisky for the next 49 years. I say we are not entitled to pledge this money. It is money obtained for the Irish people, and they have a right to it; and we cannot, by the mere fact of its passing through our hands, lay hold of it and hypothecate it without the clear and distinct assent of the large majority of the Irish Members.
    (5.5.)The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 113.—(Div. List, No. 151.)
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am anxious, consistently with my duty, to get on with the business as speedily as possible. I have already expressed my

    1347
    views in regard to this Guarantee Fund, and can consequently abbreviate my observations on the specific Amendment which I now rise to propose. As I said just now, we are opposed to the cash portion, although something plausible might be said in its favour; but we are still more opposed to the contingent portion. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary a question with regard to this matter: What is his position in relation to it? This contingent portion would be used as a cover in the event of the tenants not paying their rents. We will suppose that they do not pay; we will suppose that a strike has taken place; or we will take the case of a combination of persons who declare that if they do pay the annuities they will be absolutely ruined. It may be that produce has fallen greatly in value or that the harvest has been a 'very bad one. What would the Chief Secretary do? Would he use this Contingent Fund or not? If he uses it, what would be the result? First, the locality would have to double its rates, because the Imperial contribution would be no longer available. And if they could not get the rates in, the lunatics would have to be released, no medicine would be provided for the sick poor, nor would there be any other relief for them; and if the non-payment of the annuities arises from the fall in the value of produce, how can it be expected that the people will be able to pay a double rate. The probability is they will be unable to pay a single rate. You say that the taxpayers of Great Britain are guaranteed from any possible liability because you impose a double rate at the very moment that the people to whose interest it is to pay the annuities are absolutely unable to do so. I maintain that you cannot do it. I say that the people would not agree to the imposition of this double rate, and if they refuse to pay, what will the Chief Secretary then do? It is humanly possible that the value of produce may fall to such a point as to make impossible the payment of the annuities, and it may be that the people, holding that the rates are already sufficiently heavy, will refuse to pay more. That the Chief Secretary will be face to face with the fact that he must let loose the lunatics and stop all poor relief,
    1348
    I say it will be impossible for him to do that. A Government has certain primary responsibilities and one of those reponsibilities is providing for the sick poor and for lunatics. It cannot hypothecate money which is intended for such purposes, and therefore I assert that this proposal is merely an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the British taxpayers; it is, so far as the lunatics are concerned, a lunatic proposal from beginning to end. Both the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer know perfectly well that this guarantee is utterly and absolutely illusory; it has been introduced in order to keep apparent faith with the pledges on which they and their followers secured their seats at the last General Election—the pledges that the English taxpayer should incur no sort of liability in connection with land purchase in Ireland. It is only fair we should have a clear understanding with the Chief Secretary. Would he under any or all circumstances insist on this rate being levied? Would he send his police and his bayonets to levy it? Would he, in the event of its non-payment, let loose the lunatics and the paupers, and would he stop all education I await his reply. I do not anticipate that that reply would do away with the necessity for my taking a Division on this Amendment, but still, I am always open to argument, and if the right hon. Gentleman can prove to me that I am in the wrong I shall be glad to go over to his side.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines. 2 and 3, to leave out the words " and a contingent portion."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, " That the words and a contingent portion' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question has been discussed whenever the general principles of the Bill have been raised, and, therefore, I need not discuss it again to-day. In answer to the hon Member, however, I may say that I do regard the guarantee as a real guarantee, and I shall, if necessary, enforce it. I am not obliged to contemplate such extreme possibilities as those presented by the hon. Member. If such catastrophes as the hon. Member has pictured occurred anywhere in the British Islands, the Parliament of the

    1349
    day would no doubt take measures to cope with them. The Bill deals, as every Bill must do, with probabilities, and there is no probability of the Contingent Fund being called upon, or, if it were, of the local taxation being difficult to enforce. The hon. Member has spoken of letting loose all lunatics and withdrawing aid from the poor. He must know that, the care of lunatics and poor is riot a duty of the central Government, but essentially one of the locality, and that the grants from the Exchequer are given only to aid the locality in carrying them out. I think I have covered the points raised by the hon. Member. I do not suppose I shall be fortunate enough to convince him, but I hope I have said sufficient to indicate the views of the Government and to prove to the Committee that this is a real guarantee.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I agree with the Chief Secretary that this question has been argued before, and therefore I do not propose to take up the time of the House in discussing it again. But, at the same time, I think that the question is too important to be allowed to pass without a protest. I do not agree with the Chief Secretary that the words in question are a fundamental part of the Bill. I think, on the contrary, that, they could be omitted without detriment to the measure. There is a great distinction to be drawn between the cash portion and the contingent portion. I hold that under no possible circumstances could a Government withhold contributions for lunatic asylums and for the education of paupers, nor for any other purpose mentioned in the contingent portion of the Guarantee Fund, nor would the fear of such funds being withheld supply an inducement to the payment of the instalments. This part of the Bill is entirely illusory, and affords no real guarantee to the taxpayer. I shall therefore vote for the Amendment.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I have the strongest possible objection to this proposal to seize and impound local rates without the consent of the locality affected. I say that there is no power in existence in Ireland at the present time which is competent to pledge its own credit, and I do not think any Member for an Irish constituency would venture to support this proposal
    1350
    before his own constituents. Neither do I believe that any considerable body of the Irish people would be found to approve it; I doubt if even the constituents of the Attorney General for Ireland would sanction it. I quite admit that the Chief Secretary has improved his proposal by offering to re-cast the order in which the securities may be impounded. The grant to pauper lunatics would be fifth now instead of second on the list, and that is a material improvement. At the same time, I do not think it would be impossible to realise the securities. I think they might be realised, and the maximum of local inconvenience and irritation caused thereby. Although the Chief Secretary says it is the duty of a locality to provide for its paupers and lunatics, I must remind him that for many years. the Imperial Government has assisted in the task both in England and in Ireland, and it would be very hard now to withdraw the grants in aid. Anyone who has knowledge of agricultural life in Ireland knows that the rates and taxes are already equivalent to the rent, and if, by the withdrawal of the Imperial grant, the burden were increased, the farmers would be taxed beyond their means. While the Lord Lieutenant might succeed in levying for the county cess, such a storm would be raised as would be extremely awkward for the Government of the day, and it would not conduce to the satisfactory working of the Land Purchase Bill.
    MR. WEBBThis is a Bill of complicated details,. many of which require special ability for their discussion; but the point we are now considering stands out clearly enough, and I think every Member who represents an Irish constituency should join in the protest against this proposal, and support the Amendment. My support is given on entirely different grounds to those upon which one hon. Member gives his support. He opposes the clause because he thinks the guarantee is illusory, and that the risk must eventually fall upon the English taxpayer. I am not so credulous as to agree to put our names on the back of a Bill, satisfied with the assurance that it is merely a matter of form, and no liability attaches to it. We are called upon to give this

    1351
    guarantee, and the resources of the locality will be absolutely pledged. Since I entered this House, I have had forced upon my attention the humiliating position that Ireland occupies in our Parliamentary system, but never have I felt this more keenly than in having this clause forced upon my country against the unanimous wish of Irish Representatives. This Bill was introduced with a great flourish of trumpets as a generous measure of assistance for the pacification of the country by the use of British money and credit. It was kept out of sight that our own resources were to be pledged to carry out this Imperial measure. It cannot be too often repeated, it should be thoroughly understood, that to obtain this benefit supposed to be extended from Imperial resources we are called upon to pledge the grants to our asylums, the salaries of our schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, the medical assistance to our poor, the salaries of officers under the Public Health Act, the maintenance of our children in Industrial Schools. I hope a strong protest will be made against the unfairness of the proposal.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I have no wish to protract the discussion to any length, but, looking at this question from a Scotch point of view, I am bound to say I do not hold the same views in regard to land purchase as those held by the hon. Member for Northampton. I have not much to say against the principle of land purchase, but my action has been very much guided by what I have heard by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). He, in discussion, has admitted absolutely that if a locality were consulted, the locality would not agree to the purchase of land under existing circumstances. I understand that the terms of purchase will be forced upon the tenants in the interest of the landlords, and a Local Authority, whose resources are to be appropriated as security for payment, would not sanction the terms of purchase. Here the question arises in its barest form. We are told by the large majority of Irish Members that they will not consent to this security. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that this security is illusory. I am of opinion that it never could be enforced, and probably there
    1352
    never be the need to enforce it. But that is not the point of my objection. I am not opposed to land purchase in the interest of the tenant, but an objectionable feature of this Bill is, that under its provisions the purchase money will be higher than would be sanctioned if the opinion of the Local Authorities were taken into account as to the securities to be given. This is not denied by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, or anybody else, and so far as we are concerned, and looking upon this as a precedent for land purchase in Scotland—a precedent we shall use in favour of land purchase in Scotland—
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: No, no.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: Notwithstanding the protest of my hon. Friend I, as representing a Scottish agricultural constituency, say that this precedent of buying out Irish landlords will at some time be used, and the Government of the day will find it hard to resist the claim from Scotland under certain circumstances. But I know I stand on a very different platform to some of my colleagues in this matter. I deprecate in the strongest terms as an insult to Local Authorities in Scotland or elsewhere that they should not be consulted at all as to the security they are called upon to give. I am sure the people of Ireland, or of Scotland, in view of the demand for land, would agree that the utmost value should be given compatible with good security, without undue risk. We have before us a very important issue. It is idle to say, after we by a majority have said to Local Authorities, " You shall not be consulted in any way, but we shall keep these grants for local purposes, for education and for the maintenance of your poor, for the security of payment for the land"—it is not to be expected, I say, that these Local Authorities will not resist such action. I do not think they would be doing their duty if they did not refuse to give up these taxes. We in Scotland should resist these local taxes being taken from us against our will, and as it would be in Scotland, so I think it must be in Ireland. Let our friends show whether they believe in the justice of the claim for local government in Ireland. I have no wish to detain the Committee in this discussion of Irish matters, but,

    1353
    apart from Ireland, I wish to protest against a disregard of Local Authority over local funds.
    MR. T. W. R USSELL: I do not pretend to any special liking for this form of security in the contingent Guarantee Fund, but the matter presents itself to my mind in this way: The people of Ireland, generally speaking, desire a land purchase measure such as is now before us. There can be no question about that, because Members who resisted land purchase as proposed in the Ashbourne Act have been forced to yield to the pressure of their constituents and support this Bill. Therefore, I take it that the Irish people desire that this Land Purchase Bill should pass. Although, as I say, I have no liking for this form of security, I come to ask how is land purchase to be effected without sonic security for the money advanced? Surely the Members below the Gangway do not mean to affirm that the nation is going to hand over some £33,000,000 without any security at all?
    MR. L ABOUCHERE: That is what the Bill proposes.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is quite true that in the two Ashbourne Acts there was no security for the £10,000,000 save the land itself and the guarantee deposit of the landlord, but what has taken place since those Acts were passed? Why are the securities in the present case set up? Because of what has since been going on in three out of the four provinces of Ireland. The teaching which has been given to the farmers in those three provinces is now coming home to roost, and guarantees are now required by the British people which would never have been thought of but for the experience of the past seven or eight years in the South and West of Ireland. The matter, therefore, stands thus—we must accept a Land Purchase Bill with these securities, or we shall get no Bill of the kind at all, and I am bound to say that I would not dare to face my constituents if I had refused the Bill with the securities proposed. I deny that Ireland is unanimous as to these guarantees. Ireland is not unanimous, and the Division will show that. Ireland will reap the benefit of land purchase, and it is not asking too much that Ireland should
    1354
    pledge her local securities to secure that benefit. When we find two parties opposing this provision, one declaring that this local guarantee is not required and the other that it is altogether illusory, I say let them conic to some general agreement before they assail this fundamental part of the proposal.
    MR. STOREY: I do not wonder to hear the hon. Gentleman say he does not like this guarantee. I put it to his sense of justice, if there be a guarantee, from whom does it come?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: From the Irish people.
    MR. STOREY: Does my hon. Friend say that this clause contains any guarantee from the Irish people? In this Contingent Fund are not the main proceeds of Customs and Excise Duties obtained mainly from the people in the towns drinking more liquor than before?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There are very few towns in Ireland.
    MR. STOREY: That does not destroy my argument. As a matter of fact, a much larger amount is drawn from the people in the towns as compared with the contributions from the rural districts. What advantage is it to the people in the towns to have this Land Purchase Bill passed? What advantage is it to the people of Belfast or Dublin that a certain number of farmers in the rural parts of Ireland are to be singled out to become landowners? Not only upon the districts concerned, but upon the people in Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Limerick, Cork, and all the towns do you call to contribute their portion of the guarantee that the State may be secured from loss. Is that fair?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes.
    MR. STOREY: I think it is utterly unfair and unjust, and therefore I oppose the clause. Now, let us look at this guarantee. We have been jibed at because we have called it illusory, but I repeat it is illusory to the extent of absurdity. If there should be any deficiency, if there should be need to call up the guarantee, is there any Government that would take from the Local Authority sums now applied to the support of pauper lunatics and other purposes and use them to make up the deficiency in the Land Purchase Fund? Everybody knows what would happen Should there be such a deficiency the

    1355
    Government of the day will come to us 1 and say, " We admit that under the letter of the arrangement we ought to refuse Local Authorities these grants, but in decency and in our conscience we cannot do this; it, would not be consonant with our duty to do this, and therefore we ask for some other guarantee and. the advance of the cash by Parliament to meet this deficiency." Now, I submit to my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone—who is a logician outside the House, if he is not in the House — would it not be more honourable and statesmanlike to at once make it an Imperial guarantee entirely, and not put forward this illusory local guarantee? Take the next item, is it possible to withhold the salaries of the schoolmasters of Ireland in order to enable a limited number of farmers to become owners of land in Ireland? Will you appropriate the salaries of the medical officers, or say that the sick poor in Ireland shall not have the medicines now provided at the cost of the State, because the landlords must be paid out, handing over their land to the tenants on certain terms? I will not go through the items, they all hang together, they are of the same mean description. If you carry this land purchase scheme for Ireland, how can you resist a claim for other parts of the Kingdom on the same basis? I am not saying that I would make such a proposition. Anyone who opposes it for Ireland may consistently oppose it for Scotland or England; but how, when such a claim is made, can you consistently refuse it, having established this precedent? It is because we think this guarantee is illusory, and if not illusory most unfair and unjust, we oppose it. Take the case of any county in Ireland, where there are, say, 5,000 tenant farmers. Of these you turn 1,000 into owners, leaving the other 4,000 still in the condition of tenants; besides you have all the trading class, the grazing farmers, and what there is of the professional class, and a number of other people following various occupations, and because 1,000 men have been singled out to receive a particular benefit at the hands of the State you propose that all the other ratepayers shall become guarantees for the minority who are to receive the benefit. Well, all I
    1356
    can say is that hon. Gentlemen opposite must be much duller than I know they are if they do not, see the logical conclusion to which a policy of this sort may be pushed. Can you confine the claim to those and n few of those who occupy farms? History repeats itself; and, just as in. Imperial Rome, 2,000 years ago, the agrarian question reacted on the occupation of tenements among the working-classes in towns, so may you have the. principle agitated, not only for the occupiers of land in England and Scotland, but for the urban population. Having regard to the possible consequences that may flow from such a precedent, we oppose this clause.
    MR. P. J. POWER: There is much of this Bill complicated and technical in character; but one thing comes out clearly: that it will be more beneficial to landlords than former Land Purchase Bills. This was to be expected, and from their point of view the Government would naturally assist their friends in Ireland. With regard to the danger of repudiation which the hon. Member for South Tyrone sees ahead, I believe there will be nothing of the kind. There is no danger of the Irish people repudiating an engagement they have entered into, providing the bargain is a fair one and freely entered into. But what does this Bill propose? It proposes to provide the means whereby a certain number of tenants may become owners of their farms. But the amount placed at the disposal of the Commissioners will not allow of more than one out of every four tenants becoming owners, and the others, together with all the ratepayers in town and country, are to become security for the defalcations that may arise, though they have no voice in allowing the transactions. Now, I object to such a proposal; it is against any principle of fair play and contrary to the accepted principle that, representation should accompany taxation. The Chief Secretary repudiates any right of Local Government to the Irish people'; he throws over the principle of representation, and I never heard a more gratuitously insulting observation than that used the other night by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the elected bodies were the repudiated bodies. If these bargains are fairly made

    1357
    there will be no repudiation of engagements, and the working of the Ashbourne Act proves the truth of my assertion; but without the safeguard of local sanction, there is the greatest danger of tenants acting under duress being forced into unfair bargains. I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I confess I am somewhat in a dilemma as to giving my vote. When I find Irish Members assisting the Government to pass Clauses 1 and 2 to secure the advance of these £30,000,000, then I confess I do not like to go into the Lobby with them to shake off these local obligations. If I thought it would get rid of a real local guarantee, I would vote in favour of retaining it. The hon. Member who has just spoken expressed his belief that his countrymen would not repudiate a bargain fairly entered into; but who is to judge of the fairness? Is there not a danger that Irish farmers may hereafter say they were coerced into these contracts; and as they are not fair, they will not carry out their obligations? I am unwilling to advance the money at all, but I should prefer to have some Irish guarantee for repayment. But I am impressed with the belief that this contingent guarantee is an illusion, and is merely intended to throw dust in the eyes of the British taxpayer to induce him to assent to a Bill which he would never agree to if it were put forward in its naked form of British security only. Under the circumstances, and believing as I do that this contingent guarantee is utterly worthless, I think I cannot do better than vote against it, in so doing endeavouring to put the Bill before the electors in its naked hideousness, showing that we are really going to make these advances without any real security whatever. I object to the principle of the Bill, for I believe it is unnecessary, and that the Act of 1881, properly administered, is sufficient. I shall vote for the Amendment, for the idea that there is any security in this contingent guarantee is altogether a delusion.
    DR. TANNER: The provisions of this landlord's recupe ration Bill are of so highly technical a character that it is difficult for anyone but an experienced legal man to deal
    1358
    with them. We have now, however, arrived at a most important point touching the contingent guarantee — the guarantee which is to be exacted from the Irish people without any expression of Irish opinion with regard to it—and, as one who represents an important constituency in the province of Munster, I cannot consent to give a silent vote. This guarantee is worthless, or it is valuable. If it is worthless, I perfectly understand the proposal to strike it out. If it is not worthless, I want to hear some expression of opinion from gentlemen opposite with regard to it. Are the unfortunate lunatics of Ireland to be turned loose without any sort of care or attention being paid to them? I can conceive nothing more unworthy of even a Tory Administration. The poor children are to go untaught, and the expenses of medical officers and the cost of medicine and surgical appliances are to be sacrificed. What a pretty kettle of fish you will have in Ireland if this guarantee is called upon ! If there is any possibility of such a thing happening, no English or Scottish Member can, with a clear conscience, go home to his constituency and say he has voted in favour of such a measure. Either the Government have made a mistake in imposing this guarantee at all, or else they should have acted on some other principle so as to avoid the most fatal error into which they have fallen. I maintain that no Irish Member will be doing his duty at the present time if he does not attempt to alter this proposal, or to obtain some highly satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. SEXTON: I must strenuously object to the insertion of this local guarantee; first, because it seems to me unconstitutional in its character; and secondly, because, if it is ever exacted, it will be most oppressive to the people of Ireland. I shall not repeat the arguments I have already used en the subject.
    (6.16.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 113. — (Div. List, No. 152.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 3, after " shall," insert " in addition to the county percentage."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I should like to have some explanation of this Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is purely consequential on the alterations made in Clause 2, in deference to the hon. Member opposite.
    MR. KNOX: I should like to know precisely what the Amendment means. There is absolutely no provision in the Bill now to say what portion of the fund, whether cash or contingent, the county percentage is to go to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: As the Bill was drafted, the county percentage went as part of the Irish Probate grant, and thus into the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund. This has been modified, and those words are intended to make it clear that the percentage is still to be paid into the cash portion of the fund.
    MR. SEXTON: I think it would be better if the Amendment were inserted in Sub-head 2.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, after " fund," add " the Irish Probate Duty Grant and."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL NOLAN: Before this is taken I want to know what the Government are doing. We have had so much conversation about this Irish Probate Duty and this £40,000 that I should like to be assured where we are. I should have no objection to giving the first lien on either of these sums to labourers' cottages where they are wanted; but I want it to be clear that if this transposition is allowed, the £4,000, where no cottages are desired by the Local Authorities, shall go to the relief of local taxation.
    MR. STOREY: This is no more than a transposition, so far as I understand it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is owing to the fact that we have now allocated the Exchequer contribution to labourers' cottages. When the Bill was originally framed there was nothing of a fund at all, and our idea was to come down on the newest fund; but now there has been an alteration, it follows that the general grant should be come down on. I therefore think that the transposition should take place. The point referred to by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) is provided for by the Bill. There can be no question about it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Another Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, to omit the words " the county percentage and.' Agreed to.
    MR. KEAY: I beg to move to omit the following words in lines 11 and 12: "The Irish share of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties." This is only a small Amendment; therefore, I do not intend to detain the Committee for more than a moment in dealing with it. This is one of the items which should be left out if any other item is omitted. My objection to these words is a general one, which I have already stated to the Committee. I object to these niggardly and peddling and wholly illusory guarantees, and I consider that the British people, if they are going to devote £30,000,000 to this work, ought to have their eyes open and know what they are doing. They ought not to proceed on the pretence that there is a Guarantee Fund, which, as a matter of fact, does not exist.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words "the Irish share of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties, and."—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. STOREY: This can be put in a single sentence. Take, for instance, the Excise and Customs of London, and apply them to the purchase of holdings

    1361
    from the landlords in Bucks or Berks, and you have what is the case in Ireland. I object to the clause on principle.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not object to every item, and I hold that this particular one might be left in.
    (6.45.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 95.—(Div. List, No. 153.)
    It being after ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAY Sir JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added Mr. Gibbs to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in substitution of Mr. Baring, deceased.
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAY Sir JOHN MOWBRAY further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged Sir Walter Foster from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Public Health (London) Law Amendment Bill and Public Health (London) Law Consolidation Bill; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Farquharson.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—Middlesex Registry Bill; Electoral Disabilities Removal Bill; Public Bodies (Provisional Orders) Bill, without amendment.
    CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [LORDS].
    Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 7th May, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]
    EVENING SITTING.
      ORDERS OF TILE DAY.

        SUPPLY.
        Order for Committee read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

        DEER FORESTS.
        MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: Mr. Speaker, my justification for bringing this matter before the House in this way is that it is a matter of pressing urgency which concerns a considerable portion of the northern part of this Kingdom. I do not doubt for one moment that Her Majesty's Government would only be too glad to avert any trouble to themselves by carrying out reforms which ought to have been carried out long before now. The question of deer forests in the Highlands is one of importance, not only to people of the Highlands, but to people in other parts of the country. This question is generally what is called the crofter question, though the name is entirely new to the Highlanders; but if, however, the name can be used for the purpose of obtaining justice, I have no objection to it. What is called the crofter question can be summed up in the deer forests. I have framed my Resolution upon the definite recommendation made by the Royal Commission. I fully admit that my Resolution does not go the whole length that the needs of the case would justify, but I expect that in consequence of putting the subject before the House in this way the people of the Highlands will get an amount of support in this House that will be beneficial to them, and encourage them to keep within the bounds of the law. The adoption of this Resolution will show the people of the Highlands that there is a desire on the part of the House of Commons to do them justice. The recommendations of the Commission do not come up to the necessities of the case'; but if the Government show they are prepared to legislate upon even the moderate recommendations of the Commission, it will be an earnest to the people that they intend to do something that will really

        1363
        be for their benefit and good. I need not detain the House by going into all the circumstances that led up to the agitation in the Highlands. We know what has troubled the Government in maintaining law and order, as they say, in the Highlands: it had its origin in matters that are long past in the history of the Highlands. The fact that the Government persist in allowing the present state of matters to remain as it is continually invites public attention not only to the present circumstances, but to the prior circumstances, out of which the present state of affairs arose. The public conscience was shocked to such an extent by the result of the clearances in the Highlands that Her Majesty's Government issued a Commission to inquire into the circumstances. Of the composition of the Royal Commission I have not very much to say. It was a Commission that could in no way be described as one "having popular sympathy. Two of its members were the largest proprietors of deer forests in the Highlands, and, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Invernessshire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), there was not upon the Commission a single man who was known to be in sympathy with the people of the Highlands. My Resolution, based on a recommendation of a Royal Commission so constituted, ought, I think, to deserve some consideration from the House of Commons. The Commissioners were instructed to inquire into everything that bore upon the state of the people known now as the Crofters and Cottars of the Highlands. They divided their Report into several parts. One part was entitled " Deer Forests and Game." To indicate to the House the state of mind in which they approached the investigation of the subject I will quote what they say on this point. They say—
        " The subject of deer forests has naturally engaged our attention. Statements have been of late years frequently made, both in the newspapers and by public speakers, to the effect that deer forests are the cause of depopulation in the Highlands, and are productive of injury to the inhabitants that remain. In several of the papers read by witnesses during our inquiry similar expressions have occurred. It is proposed, therefore, to enumerate the principal grounds of complaint, and to comment on each in detail."
        I have read most carefully the whole of 'the evidence given before the Commission,
        1364
        and with, I think, three exceptions, I have seen no reference made to the subject of deer forests as bearing upon the particular question of depopulation. The Commissioners go on to say—
        " The principal objections advanced against deer forests, as presented to us, are the following—
        1. That they have been created to a great extent by the eviction or removal of the inhabitants, and have been the cause of depopulation."
        In the presence of the hon. Member for Invernessshire, who has an intimate knowledge of the people of the Highlands, and who was a member of the Commission, I say it is notorious that no one who knew anything of the state of matters in the Highlands ever asserted that deer forests were the cause of depopulation. It is asserted that the Highland clearances were carried out for the purpose of forming large sheep runs; but ultimately the landlords found it was more profitable to change the sheep runs into deer forests. The inference might be drawn from the Report that all this about depopulation was the sort of argument put forward by the people who went about agitating for the rights of the Highland people. The Report proceeds—
        " 2. That land now cleared for deer might be made available for profitable occupation by crofters.
        3. That it might at all events be occupied by sheep farmers, and that a great loss of mutton and wool to the nation might thus be avoided.
        4. That in some places, where deer forests are contiguous to arable land in the occupation of crofters, damage is done to the crops of the latter by the deer.
        5. That deer deteriorate the pasture.
        6. That the temporary employment of gillies and others in connection with deer forests has a demoralising effect."
        I wish to direct the attention of the House to the great discrepancy there is between the conclusion drawn by the Commissioners and the evidence laid before them on these points. With regard to the observation that the Commissioners found there was no great strength in any of these objections, I will read only one short extract from the evidence. As to the demoralising effect of the temporary employment upon gillies and others, the Rev. Roderick Morison, who is not a wild and irresponsible

        1365
        agitator, but a minister of the Established Church at Kintail, Rossshire, said:—
        " Now this land is wholly withdrawn from contributing to the supply of any of the needs of the human race, except the need of Higland lairds for cash. The venison produced is not worth speaking of, and is indeed often, if not generally, left to rot on the ground or thrown to dogs. And though no doubt wages are paid to keepers, gillies, watchers, &c., none of these men are productive labourers, and they are as completely withdrawn from the industrial population as the land on which they live from the food-producing resources of the country. Further, it is well-known that the life these men lead is demoralising in the extreme, and soon renders the majority of them useless for any purpose except that for which they are trained, so that when thrown out of employment they become simply an incubus on society. Removed, as most of them are, from all the influences of religion, education, and social and family life, it is difficult to foretell what they may become. They are not unlikely to prove, in course of time, a very troublesome and difficult element in the social fabric."
        As I have said this is the statement of a responsible gentleman—a native of the Highlands—and who has had ample opportunities of seeing everything he describes. Whatever e qualifications of the Commissioners to have formed a proper judgment may have been I am perfectly satisfied for the present that the Government should make a beginning by carrying out the recommendations the Commissioners have made. I am sensible of the fact that they lack definitiveness, but they point to a principle, and what I say is, we are en titled to expect that the House should endorse the principle in the Resolution. The Commissioners deprecated the turning of any more land into deer forest unless it was above a certain altitude, and they expressed the opinion that they were not in favour of any further afforestation of land. But what has happened since the Commission reported? 2,000,000 acres of land in the Highlands of Scotland had, up to that date, been made into deer forests, and since that time 200,000 acres had been added to the forests. In a Report of a Select Committee appointed in 1873, it was shown that deer forests occupied 9 per cent. of the acreage of the Highlands. In 1884 the percentage had
        1366
        risen to 29, and, according to Lyall's Sporting Guide, it had in 1890 risen to 56½. I think the House will agree with me that this waste of land should be checked, and that the land should be devoted to purposes which would be more beneficial to the public. The recommendations I ask the Government to carry out are very moderate. What do the majority of the Commission say? They report—
        " The appropriation of land to the purposes of deer forest might be prohibited below a prescribed contour line of elevation, so drawn as to mark in a general but effective way the limit of profitable root and cereal cultivation, of artificial pasture, and of pasture adapted for wintering live stock, a line which on the east side of Scotland, in a high latitude, might be approximately fixed at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the sea level, and on the western seaboard at a lower level than 1,000 feet, making allowance locally for the convenience of the march. The advantage attached to this system would be, that the area of land which could possibly be devoted to sport alone would be circumscribed once for all, and all indefinite apprehensions, whether on the part of the farmer, the crofter, or the public at large, would be set at rest. The disadvantages attached to the hard and fast boundary would on the other hand be that the line might in some cases include for the purposes of sport exceptional spots available for profitable use, and might in others, especially on the west coast, exclude rugged and precipitous tracts, extending to the very verge of the salt water, of little use to the crofter or farmer from situation or quality, but yet well suited for deer."
        I consider that is a very reasonable recommendation and one which, as I have said, for present purposes would satisfy the people of the Highlands. The Commissioners go on—
        " The alternative method would be, that in each particular case in which the proprietor desired to withdraw land from agricultural or pastoral occupancy, and deliver it over to deer, the area should be subjected to the inspection of a government officer, and that those portions of it which were adapted for crofting cultivation, for small tenancy, or generally for cultivation or wintering sheep, should be reserved, leaving the residue which was only available for summer Pasture to be appropriated at the discretion of the proprietor."
        I fail to see how the Government can refuse to adopt a Resolution based upon such moderate recommendations. This question of deer forests is one upon which the whole of the land question in

        1367
        the Highlands turns. It is because landlords in the Highlands get a better price now for the land that was first taken away from the people that the people of the Highlands do not get that justice to which they are entitled. I have my own opinion regarding sport. There is legitimate sport, and it is just as good when the land is devoted to grazing as when it is made into a desert. It is not very far back in the history of the Highlands when you could count all the deer forests on the fingers of one hand. Eminent lawyers have stated that there is some difficulty about the modern deer forests, and that it is not known very well whether those who hold them are not poachers. I remember seeing a case reported in which a Judge in the Superior Court in Scotland ruled that no person could prosecute anybody for shooting a deer in the forest of Athol, except the Lord Advocate. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will give us some information on the subject. These forests have grown in number, and if they did no harm to the people, I do not suppose that I or my constituents would trouble much about it. What I say is that they prevent the people of the Highlands earning their livelihood in a decent manner. It is said that the people can go to the Great North-West of Canada, and the predecessor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate stood up in his place in this House, and said he was sorry for the people who dwelt in the Highlands, as it was such an inhospitable climate. Only two or three days after that speech was delivered I saw the right hon. Gentleman speeding away towards that inhospitable climate, whither he was going to recuperate. Why the Highlands of Scotland are the great sanitorium of England. The Highlanders desire that they should remain so even more than they are at present; but English gentlemen are not content to meet the Highlanders on a proper equality, and want them only to be their gillies, and to carry their shooting-bags. The Government have shown great generosity to the people of the Highlands by giving them harbours. A long
        1368
        time ago the people were turned out of the Highlands and sent down to the seashore to become fishermen, and, strange to say, it is only now that the Government are giving them harbours. We believe that deer forests are not at all necessary for legitimate sport, but are opposed to it. Quite as good sport is got on sheep-runs as in deer forests. I know a gentleman who refused to take a deer forest because he preferred to have mixed shooting. The modern craze for deer forests simply arises from the fact that there are sportsmen who are not sportsmen, and who must have an artificially-formed desert for their own particular purposes. There are a great many other aspects of this question, but I have no desire to unduly trouble the House with regard to them. I may say, however, that the whole Highland question is at the present moment summed up in this question of deer forests. It has been stated over and over again that, instead of diminishing the amount of local labour, deer forests increase it. I can read you the evidence given by a man, who was perfectly capable of giving evidence on this point, before a Select Committee of 1873. Lord Napier's Commission said that deer forests were beneficial to the Highlands. If so, why have recommendations been proposed which would retard their growth? I see that a Member of that Commission is here to defend the Report, and I hope he will do so. It is stated that the only land used for deer forests is land that is incapable of other use. I have frequently seen that where sheep will live and thrive deer will die. I have seen deer carted away in heaps after a heavy snow storm, which the sheep lived through. The late Mr. Purvis was questioned by Mr. Clare Sewell Read before the Select Committee of 1873 as to the difference between the numbers of people maintained on a sheep run and in a deer forest. He said lie employed from six to eight shepherds himself, and one gamekeeper was sufficient for the whole place as a deer forest. He also stated that a sheep-farm which employed from eight to ten shepherds could be quite easily managed by two keepers except, perhaps, in the shooting season. Asked the number of men

        1369
        employed under each system generally, he said the number must be in favour of sheep-farming by six to one at least. He said, further, that sheep would live where deer would not live, and that in 1859-60, when he lost a third of his sheep through starvation, the deer died first. Gentlemen who only see the country in the summer and autumn do not know what happens in the winter when severe weather comes on and the animals are driven to the lower ground. If the proposal of Lord Napier's Commission were carried out it would not mean the extermination of the deer in the Highlands. You cannot confine them, they will come down to feed in the spring. If all the land capable of cultivation were given to the crofters to-morrow, there would still be deer in the Highlands. Are they not indigenous animals? They will never be exterminated, and there will be plenty of sport and more manly sport than can be had now. To say that the deer would be exterminated is to speak without knowledge. I need not waste time in combating the absurd statement that when sheep are displaced by deer there is very little loss of the food supply of the country. Highland mutton is known everywhere, but how little is venison an article of food for the people in the market? Yet the Royal Commission accepted this dictum from gentlemen who were interested. However anxious Gentlemen who occupied positions on the Commission may have been to arrive at the truth, they being only human were bound to be influenced by the fact that if they reported against deer forests they would be taking away a considerable portion of their own revenue at the same time. Notwithstanding, it is the duty of the Government to accept such recommendations as the Commissioners have made, and I think it would be for their own benefit to show that they are determined to redress the wrongs from which the Highland population have suffered in the past. After the Report of the Commissioners was issued, and before the Crofters' Act was passed, there was in 1885 a meeting of Highland landlords held in Inverness, and they declared distinctly, at that meeting, that they were prepared, as opportunities arose, to enlarge the
        1370
        holdings of their tenants. Nothing, however, has been done in this direction, but, on the contrary, the afforesting of the land has been going on ever since. It was because of the promise of the Highland landlords on that occasion that the Crofters Act of 1886 did not contain more drastic measures as to the acquisition of land by the people. Despite that promise very few enlargements have been carried out, and I think I have made out a very good case why the Government should accept this Resolution in the spirit in which it is offered. It is proposed in a very moderate spirit—a too moderate spirit some of my hon. Friends say—but I want the Government to see the reasonableness of the demand that legislation shall carry into effect the recommendations of the Commission, and that the land shall be devoted to whatever purpose is best for the good of the people of the Highlands and the welfare of the country at large. I have great pleasure in proposing the Resolution.
        Amendment proposed,
        To leave out from the word " That " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " having regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission (Highlands and Islands of Scotland, 1884) concerning additional afforest-meat of land, and to the fact that, since the date of the Report of the Commission, additional land has been afforested to such an extent as to constitute a grave national danger, this House is of opinion that immediate legislation, based upon the recommendations of the said Commission with regard to Deer Forests, in the Highlands of Scotland, is urgently called for,"—(Mr. Angus Sutherland,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
        DR. CAMERON: In seconding the Resolution it will not be necessary for me, after the full statement of my hon. Friend, to detain the House more than a very few minutes. When the Royal Commission reported in 1884 there were, roughly speaking, 2,000,000 of acres. of land in Scotland under deer forests, or one-tenth of the entire area of Scotland, and, of course, a vastly larger proportion

        1371
        of the Highlands. Since then some 200,000 acres, or 10 per cent. have been added to this enormous area. The statement of my hon. Friend was not at all exaggerated when he described the composition of the Commission in regard to deer forests. Upon that Commission were Sir Kenneth Mackenzie and Cameron of Lochiel, proprietors of nearly 100,000 acres of forest, or 5 per cent. of the entire amount, and it is natural to suppose that they would not take up an unnecessarily hostile position affecting the interests of the large property they represented. Yet, despite the peculiar composition of the Commission, the Report laid down in effect the proposition that deer forests should not be extended. They expressly said that at that time most of the land specially adapted by its natural features to the habits of deer and the purposes of deer forests, and which could, without substantial injury to other interests be thus applied, had been appropriated, and the formation of other deer forests should be discouraged. Yet, since then, the land under deer forests has increased 10 per cent. The Commissioners made recommendations which, if adopted, would have prevented the extension of deer forests, if they had not led to their curtailment. They recommended that such should not be formed below a given altitude —1,000 feet above the sea. Now, my hon. Friend has said that it is alleged that at that altitude deer cannot live, and that makes me think all the more highly of the recommendation of the Commissioners. The question has been raised as between deer and sheep, and I may say that with that question I am very little concerned; what concerns me is the question as between deer and sheep and men. It is the question as between animals on the one side, and mankind on the other, that compelled the Crofter Commission to Report as they did, composed as they were. They proposed restrictions on deer forests in the future, they proposed that the proprietors of deer forests should be compelled to fence in their property, and that when the deer came upon the
        1372
        crofters' holdings, crofters should have an inalienable right to kill the animals. They made various other recommendations calculated to check the evils of an extension of deer forests, and to protect the crofters' industry. The Commissioners had evidence before them that crofters had to watch all night to protect their produce from deer raids, and other evidence showed how the estate rules, incident to the preservation of deer forests, were oppressive in the highest degree. Here the tenants could not keep a gun, there they could scarcely marry, and could not harbour their sons' wives and daughters' husbands without an infraction of these rules. The Commissioners did not make any recommendations that could be considered as trenching upon proprietors' rights. They were inclined to regard the whole matter in the most philosophical light, and they said if the whole of Scotland were withdrawn from the food-producing area, such was the importation from abroad that it would make remarkably little difference to the food supply of the people, there would be no scarcity, and only a slight increase in the price of the best quality of Highland mutton. Yet the Commissioners go on to say that the absorption of the country by deer forests, even though the people were provided with land in our colonies, where they can carry on their industry under more comfortable and lucrative conditions, must be viewed with alarm, because it is resisted by the force of public opinion, and attended with an amount of irritation much to be deprecated. Now the right lion. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture, I know from previous experience, will tell us about the advantages, the increase of employment, the wealth, that deer forests bring to the country, and that these advantages are greater than would accrue if the land were under sheep; but I venture to say that his authority, great, as I know it is, and great as is his acquaintance with deer forests from a sporting point of view, cannot be placed against that of Cameron of Lochiel, a sportsman also, one of the largest proprietors in Scotland, and a gentleman who has had more to do with sheep farming than any other man in the district where he lives. He has

        1373
        always had the most friendly feeling towards the people of his race, and has always shown himself ready to give every consideration to all their claims. He, in the special Report which he drew up from his own point of view, recommended an alternative which consisted of the application of the principle that advances should be made to crofters on the security of their stock—an alternative which, as lie said, "would gradually lead to a re-distribution of the land, without doing violence to proprietary rights." Proprietors, as he says, if his recommendation were adopted, "would probably be compelled to sacrifice some share of the rents they have lately been receiving from deer forests; but this is a precarious source of income dependent upon the fashion of the day." But since the issue of the Report of the Commission, the congestion in the Highlands has increased, disturbances have occurred, and public attention has more than ever been directed to this subject. We have an American millionaire as lessee of an immense tract of country extending from coast to coast, exercising his right in connection with this deer forest in the most arbitrary and tyrannical fashion. We all know of how a crofter was persecuted in connection with a pet lamb, so that deer might not be disturbed. Even au officer of Her Majesty's Excise was turned off the land where he ventured to intrude under warrant to look after illicit distillation. We have had popular tumults in Lewis, and it has transpired that in this congested district, where recourse has been had to State-aided emigration, at a cost which would require the value of the fee-simple of the soil to deport the so-called surplus population, raids have been made upon deer forests covering 144 square miles of ground. We shall be told that these deer forests could never be made capable of supporting a Highland peasantry; but is it not a matter of notoriety that in the glens over which these forests " extend there are to be met with, the ruins of villages where a Highland population once lived. It may be true that the clearances were not made for deer forests; but it is equally true that they were made for creating large sheep farms, and the soil being exhausted and these found
        1374
        not to pay, the land has been converted into deer forests to meet the present fashion. Not one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been carried into effect, with one small exception, which I was instrumental in inducing the House to adopt—the rating of deer forests in the occupation of their owners, not at their former agricultural value, but at the rate they might be expected to let. I will say no more, because our time is limited and there are many Members desire to take part in the Debate. I would only warn the Government that, the longer they delay dealing with this question the more drastic will be the remedy demanded. For the present we claim there shall be no extension, and that below a certain altitude there shall be an inspection, and that land suitable for crofters' cultivation should cease to be deer forest. It will be something to secure, that the evil shall not increase, though I do not say we shall be satisfied with that; and for my part I wish to see all the land that is cultivable in these forests restored to the people from whom it has been taken. Wise proprietors like Cameron of Lochiel, who see what is coming, are willing to meet this demand in a fair and equitable spirit. If this is not done the day of grace is fast slipping away and the recommendations of the Commission of 1881 will soon be regarded as wholly inadequate. Parliament is becoming more democratic, and the rights of proprietors so studiously regarded in the Report of the Commission will not much longer be held not more sacred than the right of men to live and labour on their own native land. I heartily second the Resolution.
        MR. SHAW-STEWART: Although a Lowlander, representing a Lowland constituency, I may perhaps be allowed to take part in this Debate, for everything that affects the prosperity or the reverse of the Highlands affects Scotland as a whole. If it were true; as has been declared by the Mover of the Resolution, that the crofter question is summed up in the question of deer forests, hon. Members on this side of the House would certainly support the Resolution. But I do not gather from the speech

        1375
        of the hon. Member that he has proved the assertion with which he commenced. I was glad to hear the hon. Member say that the depopulation of the Highlands is not, as is popularly believed, due to the clearance of the land to create deer forests, but that the clearances were mainly for sheep farming. Now, if the hon. Member has read carefully the Report of the Select Committee of 1873 he cannot fail to see that one great cause of the depopulation, certainly in Ross-shire, was the suppression of smuggling. Though hon. Members may laugh it is not my assertion. I find it in the evidence given before the Select Committee of 1873. In this occupation a considerable number of the population were engaged—
        MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: Will the hon. Member say whose evidence he is referring to?
        MR. SHAW - STEWART: The evidence of Mr. Horatio Ross. The hon. Member has quoted the evidence of Mr. Purvis, and I think the evidence of Mr. Ross, a Highland resident for a number of years, is equally entitled to credence when he gives this in addition to the clearances for sheep as one of the reasons for the decline of the population in Ross-shire. The hon. Member based his Motion on the Report of the Commission, and then proceeded to throw some discredit on the Members who constituted it, which seems a peculiar way of proving that the recommendation of the Committee should be attended to. The hon. Member says those recommendations should be put in force because there has been so large an increase in the area afforested since the Commission reported in 1884. Now, what were the recommendations of the Commission? The Commission did not make any recommendation to be carried out at that time, these recommendations were only to be carried out in a certain event. These recommendations, or suggestions
        1376
        rather, were only to be given I effect to in the event of there being a very much larger area of land afforested. The Commissioners said that it bad been shown that in recent times crofters had rarely been removed for the purpose of making additions to deer forests, and that comparatively little of the land so occupied could be made available for cultivation or pasture. The Commissioners pointed out that deer forests gave about as much permanent employment as sheep farms, and that as regards temporary employment deer forests offered a great advantage, affording more work to masons, joiners, plumbers, plasterers, slaters, road-makers, wire-fencers, and other trades, and in the season brought more trade to shopkeepers. I am not a champion of deer forests, and have no connection with them, but I am naturally interested in the question as a Scotch Member, and I am bound to say the hon. Member has not made out his case that drastic changes should be made as he suggested. The Commissioners, while not anticipating that there would be any large increase in the area of deer forests, made certain suggestions as to the lines upon which legislation might proceed should such a contingency arise. Has there been a large increase? Before the Committee on Colonisation last year, it was shown that in 1883 there were 109 deer forests, with nearly 2,000,000 acres of land, while in 1890 there were 114, with very little over 2,000,000 acres, the increase being 148,500 acres. This is from the evidence of Mr. Malcolm, who seems to be a man who knew what he was talking about. Is that such an increase as to constitute " a grave national danger "? That is the point, because if there has not been sufficient increase since 1884 to constitute a grave national danger I do not see that we are called upon to interrupt the legislation of the Session—which is heavy enough already—to introduce legislation based on the suggestions of the Commission of 1884, which were only contemplated to be carried into effect in the case of a great increase of afforesting. If the hon. Member has failed to show that the increase since

        1377
        1884 has amounted to a national danger, then his Motion must fall to the ground. On the general question of deer forests, the hon. Member dealt with it rather on the ground of sport. But it is far too grave a question to be dealt with in that light. I represent a constituency in Scotland which contains many working men, and, therefore, I am bound to consider the matter from the economic point of view, and not from the sporting point of view. Were we to do away with deer forests, should we benefit the Highlands or the reverse? I find from the Reports of the Commission of 1884 and the Committee of 1873 that deer forests pay in many parishes in Scotland quite half of the public burdens.
        MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: That proves that they constitute half the Highlands; it proves nothing more.
        MR. SHAW-STEWART: And if you do away with the forests what rent will you get? I believe that if we were to do away with deer forests to-morrow we should reduce the Highlands to the condition in which they were before this immense amount of money was brought into the country, we should also reduce the agricultural value of the land to about two-thirds, and sporting-rents would be non-existent. If hon. Members opposite can prove to me that the Highlands would be better for the abolition of deer forests, I should be glad to vote for the Resolution. But I do not believe that the putting down of deer forests would benefit the Highlands, and, therefore, not out of any consideration for sport, but on economic grounds, I feel bound to vote against the Resolution.
        DR. M'DONA LID: The hon. Member who last spoke said the Government would be only too glad to do away with deer forests if that would afford a solution of the crofter question. That may be the opinion of individual Members, but I am afraid that it is not the opinion of the Government. I say it would go a great way towards the solution of the crofter
        1378
        question. Whatever the opinion of hon. Members opposite, or of people who know little about the subject may be, it is the opinion of the crofters themselves that to do away with deer forests would help them very considerably, and they will not be satisfied till something is done in that direction. The hon. Member, referring to the recommendations of the Commission of 1884, said that they were merely suggestions, and that it was not intended to recommend that legislation on such lines should be adopted. He quoted paragraphs from the Report. Well, on looking at that Report, I find it sets forth that it is the opinion of the Royal Commission that provisions should be framed under which croftlands should be protected against diminution for the purpose of afforestment. If the hon. Member will again examine the Report he would find that, although in the previous sentence the Commissioners used the word " suggest," they really indicate an intention to give effect to the recommendation there and then. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that no arable land was taken away for those deer forests. I do not know whether the hon. Member has ever walked through one of those deer forests; but if he were to take an exercise from Lochalsh to Beauly, he will find the ruins of many farmhouses. There is a good deal of arable land included in Mr. Wynan's deer forests.] It is quite a common thing to fence in a piece of arable land in the glens, and to sow corn upon it, so that in the winter there may be food for the deer, who otherwise could not live. That is done regularly in some parts of the Highlands.
        SIR A. BORTHWICK: Where are the oats in bad weather?
        DR. M`DONALD: They are standing crops.
        SIR A. BORTHWICK: Where are they to be found?
        DR. M`DONALD: In the forests.
        SIR A. BORTHWICK: Are they standing crops?
        DR. M'DONALD: Yes.
        SIR A. BORTHWICK: In the winter?
        DR. M'DONALD: Yes. It shows that the forests are not sufficient to keep the deer unless the oats are sown for them. If that were not the opinion of the owners they would not go to the expense of sowing the corn.
        MR. WEBSTER: The hon. Member has stated that the deer eat grain grown during the winter months. I should like to know the peculiar part of the Highlands where they grow that grain?
        DR. M'DONALD: I do not know what the hon. Member means, neither do I know that grain is grown in the winter months. But perhaps the hon. Member knows the country where it is grown in winter. It certainly does not in Scotland. One hon. Member asked what' would become of the Highlands if the rent of the deer forests were not forthcoming? Now, one argument in favour of deer forests is that they are said to pay their owners better; but if on that ground all the Highlands were converted into deer forests because good rents were got for them, what would become of the population? It might pay better for a time, but acting on that principle the whole of the people of the Highlands would have to be expatriated. Many people go on the theory that the so-called deer forests are not fit for anything else, but we in the Highlands know that that is a very great mistake. I was asked yesterday by a man of considerable culture and knowledge if the trees were very thick in the deer forests. That showed that he knew nothing of deer forests, for there are no trees in them at all. And then as to the possibility of keeping sheep on these lands, what does an animal live upon when there is no food obtainable? It lives upon its reserve of fat. It is a well-known fact that deer have hardly any fat as compared with sheep at certain seasons, and consequently sheep are far more likely to thrive in these
        1380
        forests than deer. With regard to the depopulation of the Highlands, the Commission in their Report say no one could contemplate the conversion of arable and pasture land into forests without alarm. And yet, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, a considerable quantity of such land has, since the Report, been added to the deer forests, and the process is still going on. The truth is, that as the leases of the large sheep farms fall in, the landlords are not able to stock those farms, which they are obliged to do when the farmers go out, and therefore it is that they let the farms as deer forests. Take, for instance, the deer forests in the Lewis, of which so much has been heard. I admit that the Government have done a great deal for the Lewis, but I am sorry they have not seen their way to making a road in that part of the Lewis where on about six square miles about 1,500 people are located. There is one person in Ross-shire who has a deer forest extending from one side of Scotland to the other, and, as far as I know, not a shot has been fired in that forest for at least four or five years. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite know that it is credibly reported of that gentleman that he keeps that forest up only to show the rottenness of the laws of this old country of ours. It therefore cannot be said to be kept up for sport in any form. I have no objection whatever to part of the land, which is useless for the people, being used for deer forests; but I maintain that most of the land is fit for the people, because it has been proved that sheep can live on it if deer cannot.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I can sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire both on the speech and the terms of his Motion. The hon. Member has spoken, as he always does, with a measure of good humour and intelligence, which we all appreciate. But on the terms of the Motion my congratulation of the hon. Member is perhaps more of an ironical character. The hon. Member has put into his Resolution two topics very badly calculated to attract the interest of the

        1381
        House. He has urged upon its acceptance the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and has called attention to what he describes as a great national danger. First of all, as regards the recommendation of the Royal Commission. I listened with great interest to all parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I did not discover that it was strongly permeated by a profound respect for the recommendations of the Royal Commission, because he permitted himself to say that some of their statements were absurd and ridiculous, and he added that he was not going to insult the intelligence of the House by repeating some of their conclusions. At the same time, he called upon us, out of respect to the Royal Commission, to adopt its recommendations. Now, the conclusions which the hon. Gentleman describes as absurdly ridiculous are argued out and supported by reasons which will recommend themselves as forcible and cogent. They discuss the whole social and economic bearings of deer forests upon the condition of the Highlands, and they arrive at strongly favourable conclusions as to the benefits conferred on the Highlands by the existing system. They arrive at that conclusion upon grounds so explicitly and carefully stated and well argued out that he would be a bold man who would merely stave them off by epithets such as the hon. Gentleman has applied to them. I find, on turning to the Report of the Royal Commission, that the Commissioners do not assign to the recommendations referred to the precise position which the hon. Member does. The recommendations on which the lion. Gentleman has laid stress are treated by the Commissioners as within the region of speculation. They say, for instance, they do not anticipate with any degree of certainty that the contingency to which they have averted will arise,
        " But, considering the divergency of opinion expressed and the possibility of unfortunate results from prolonged excitement in connection with this question, we may well consider whether the Government and Parliament may not contemplate such legislative restrictions as will restrain the progressive afforestment of land and allay the apprehensions which are widely felt on the subject. Admitting that this suggestion is worth being entertained, we
        1382
        trust we shall not be thought to go beyond the confines of our Commission in offering suggestively some indication of the lines on which legislation might possibly proceed."
        Indeed, it would be difficult to find in 20 lines of the Report of any Royal Com-mission such a series of hypotheses, qualifications, and reservations.
        DR. M`DONALD: But how about the next sentence?
        MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: That still further corroborates my argument, for the Commissioners say that they are of opinion that provisions should be framed under which the crofting classes would be protected—observe that that was before the Crofters' Act of 1866 was passed—against the diminution for the purposes of afforestment of the arable or pasture area. I venture to say that the Crofters' Act to which I have alluded affords even a more drastic remedy than was suggested by the Royal Commission. The recommendations which the lion. Gentleman pressed upon the attention of the House were couched in very careful language, and merely offered as alternative suggestions, and offered for discussion. The lion. Member for Sutherlandshire said that there were three recommendations of the Royal Commission which were put as if they were cumulative and combined. They are nothing of the kind. They are alternative suggestions. The first, which was put in cautious language, very well adapted to the highly problematic nature of the suggestion, was that there might, be a line of 1,000 feet below which a deer forest should not come. They went on to add that they knew that that formula would break down on the West Coast; but on the East Coast it might be adopted. So far as I could discover, the formula to be adopted for the West Coast was nothing less than the sea level. That is not a very exacting limit. The second alternative was that there should be a Government Inspector to look into the afforestments, and see whether there was cultivable land included in them which might be turned to use in the future. The hon. Gentleman

        1383
        did not even mention that plan as either reasonable or probable. The third was in favour of some reservation of ground for forestry as distinguished from afforestment, for there was much to be said for forestry as one of the industries of the Highlands which might be developed. I hope that I have shown that the lion. Member for Sutherlandshire has rather misplaced the recommendations of the Commission, because he values their doubts more than their certainties While he regards their conclusions as being so absurd and ridiculous that he will not insult their intelligence by discussing them, he idolises their doubts and uncertainties. Has the hon. Gentleman made out his case on the footing of these recommendations? In the first place, the lion. Gentleman referred to the afforestments which have taken place since the date of the Commission in 1884, the extent of which he puts at 200,000 acres.
        DR. CLARK: More than 1,000,000.
        MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member for Caithness says " more than 1,000,000." The hon. Member interrupted my hon. Friend in the same way, and interposed a good round figure. The hon. Member went before the Colonisation Committee and said that 1,100,000 acres had been afforested since 1883. But the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire has been before the same Committee, and his estimate is 200,000 acres. The hon. Member for Caithness said on the 10th of February, 1891, that he had brought this estimate before the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, and that the estimate of the latter was only 2,000 or 3,000 acres different in 500,000. That was a bold effort to capture the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, but it did not succeed. The lion. Member for Sutherlandshire had from the 10th of February to the 24th of April to harmonise his differences with the hon. Member for Caithness, but he waives off the suggestion of 1,000,000, and manfully adheres to his own estimate of 200,000 acres. This is a question o fact and observation; and as
        1384
        the hon. Gentleman alleges that there is a great national danger, the extent of the afforestment must determine the greatness of the danger. Mr. Malcolm, who has apparently gone into the matter with carefulness and accuracy, and who has given precise and definite figures, says that since the Report of the Commission the extent of the afforestment has been 148,500 acres. But, for the purpose of argument, I will take the figures of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire. The hon. Member declares that the change to which he refers constitutes a grave national danger. How does it do so Does the hon. Gentleman desire that these 200,000 acres should be restored to the sheep farms? Because the change that has been made since 1884 has been merely turning large sheep farms into deer forests. Is the hon. Gentleman justified in contending that a grave national danger is constituted by having a few deer forests in place of sheep farms? The House ought to be careful in adopting a conclusion of such vast proportions to remove the tendency to alarm, so far as the public mind is concerned, as to what will be the extent of the injury which will constitute this grave national danger. Were we in safety when we had the large sheep farms, and, if so, what new condition of things has been brought about to the detriment of the farmers who are usually under the aegis of hon. Gentlemen opposite? Turning to the recommendations of the Crofter Commissioners, they say that the two points which they were to have in view were, first, to keep for the crofters what they had already—and that has been done—and then to reserve the areas of cultivable land which should be available in order to constitute a sufficiency of holdings for the crofters. The hon. Member's speech contained a great deal, but it did not contain a suggestion as to how much land there is available for cultivable holdings in the tracts afforested. We are left in the dark as to that. The matter is left as an abstract question, consequently we are left to assume that the hon. Member cannot assert that in these afforested tracts there is more than the average amount of cultivable land. What does all this amount to? Take the 200,000 acres and deal with

        1385
        them as a sum of proportion. We know exactly what is the proportion of cultivable land in an ordinary sheep farm such as is turned into a forest. Most of it is high and rough, and very little is cultivable. The hon. Member will hardly venture to affirm that there are more than 200 acres of cultivable land in the afforested acreage which he has named, and a crofter ought not to be penned in a holding of less than 10 acres. Therefore, accepting the lion. Member's own figures, the whole grievance which is said to constitute a grave national danger, comes to this—that some 20 crofters' holdings have been absorbed by these afforestments. The hon. Member ought to be anxious to retain the respect which is entertained for his case and his character by abstaining from exaggerations as grievous as those I have pointed out.
        MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I did not base my case on the fact that holdings of cultivable land are everywhere necessary. There is no reason why small holdings should not be pastoral as well as agricultural.
        MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The House must observe that the whole of the reasoning of the Crofters' Commission has proceeded on taking hill-pasture as well as arable ground, and all the conclusions of the Commission assume that a sheep requires a certain amount of hill ground—five or seven acres, I think—in order to maintain an existence. The A B C of the calculation is that you must have a small patch of arable land and a sufficient acreage for sheep for the crofter to begin with. I have shown, therefore, how devoid of solid foundation are the cases stated by the hon. Member. But I must add a few words on another most important subject—one on which there is, no doubt, frequently an extraordinary attempt made to excite prejudice. Sir, I deprecate most strongly—as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire did with great force and effect—the notion that this question of deer forests is exclusively a sportsman's question. It is
        1386
        really an economic question affecting the welfare of the Highlands; and the mature conclusions of the Crofters' Commission, after hearing all persons interested, were that for the general well-being of the Highland population, deer forests do more than sheep farms. I am dealing now with the allegation that there is a grave national danger, and it is indispensable that the public should have a clear notion on that subject. As a matter of history, how comes it that in the instances referred to deer forests have been substituted for sheep farms? Not through the caprice of the landowner, not in order to increase the amount of sporting land, but for a purely economic reason—because the fall in the price of wool has made sheep farming a bad business in the North of Scotland, and rents cannot be obtained for large sheep farms; and in every one of the instances where there has been a change since the Crofters' Commission from sheep farms into deer forests it has been due not to any desire to establish luxuries, but simply to employ the land in the only advantageous way available. That is proved to the mind of every one who examines the evidence taken by the Committee, presided over by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Mackenzie, one of the leaders of the crofters, stated that what had led to the change was the fact that for large sheep farms even barely reasonable offers could not be obtained, while advantageous offers were made for deer forests. The Crofters' Commission reported on this subject—
        " The number of persons permanently employed in connection with deer forests as compared with sheep farms is about the same, and as regards temporary or occasional employment the advantage is in favour of deer forests."
        The Commissioners on the more general question also said—
        " Contrary to what is probably the popular belief, deer forests in a far greater degree than sheep farms afford employment to masons, joiners, plumbers, rural tradesman, &c."
        Therefore I emphasise the statement that deer forests are, under the present economic conditions, not advantageous merely for the selfish purpose of the landlords who draw a big rent, but advantageous to the whole community. I will refer to an expression of opinion

        1387
        not by this Parliament, but by one differing in its composition from this very largely—I mean the short Parliament from 1885 to 1886. In the Crofters Act provision was made for the enlargement of holdings, and a clause was assented to by the Member for Clackmannan to the effect that the enlargement should only be made from deer forests in the event of the Commissioners believing that it was for the advantage of the whole community that the change should be made. I say that this was a challenge on the part of Parliament — not a Tory or Unionist Parliament, but one of a very different character—to the parties interested, to show whether the economic condition of the Highlands was better served by one state of things than the other. I have dwelt on these considerations, because the present Motion, although it refers to a comparatively limited subject, opens up large questions. We are asked tonight to avert a "grave national danger." It is my opinion that it has not been shown that there is any grave or national question to meet. I will go further and say that upon the facts before us the change that has taken place appears to be a change for the better. I trust that the House will resolutely negative a Motion, which, if carried, would give rise to misleading expectations as to the opinions held by Parliament on the state of matters that are not to be considered in the interests of sportsmen or any privileged class, but as every question of this kind should be considered, in the interest of the whole country.
        MR. MARJORIBANKS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman who as just sat down has attempted to deal with the arguments of the hon. Gentleman behind me in a light and trivial spirit. He has shown that there are such things as ornaments of Debate, and I am afraid that sometimes, also, there are ornaments to the Resolutions which are presented to the House. I find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has fixed on an ornament of the Resolution of my hon. Friend, and has treated that ornament
        1388
        as if it were the whole Resolution. He has drawn attention to the words " grave national danger," and has made fun of them, and has left out of consideration and argument the serious and material part of the Resolution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that my hon. Friend whilst he professed profound respect for the utterances of the Royal Commission did not pay much attention to the words of their Report. Now, that is a charge that I am prepared to meet with an absolute denial. I want to know how my hon. Friend could have paid more respect to the Report of the Commission than by adopting word for word the recommendations of the Commission with regard to this question of forests. I must say I have to find fault with the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has placed the recommendations of the Commission before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to show that the Commission's recommendations are mere suggestions as to possible legislation. The recommendations of the Commissioners were fourfold—first as to the fencing off of deer forests from arable land.
        Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I directed myself to what the lion. Member for Sutherlandshire spoke of—namely, fresh afforestment.
        MR. MARJORIBANKS: What we have to consider are the words of the recommendations. The second recommendation is that no land should be taken from crofters for the extension of a forest without other land being substituted therefor. The third is with regard to a method for deciding what land may in future be appropriated for forests. as to which I admit the Commissioners put forward merely suggestions of an attitude limit being fixed, or of a reference to a Government Inspector; and the fourth is as to the planting of land. It seems to me that these recommendations are exceedingly moderate, and they are recommendations which can be adopted by any Government without resorting to revolutionary method, and without doing anything which would injure any interest in Scotland. I certainly should

        1389
        not have been prepared to support the Resolution of my hon. Friend if it had gone to the lengths suggested by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Mr. Shaw-Stewart), who seemed to think it involved the destruction of all deer forests in Scotland. I am bound to confess that many people greatly exaggerate the damage that is done by deer forests and the danger to the country that results from them. But there is one thing in the use and another in the abuse of deer forests. I admit that there is great abuse of forests in Scotland, and it is to stop that abuse that I think legislation is required. I should like to refer for a moment to some of the statements made by supporters of the Resolution. The hon. Member for Sutherland spoke of the statement made by the Rev. Roderick Morrison to be found in Appendix A to the Report of the Crofters' Commission. The rev. gentleman said in that statement that the venison produced was not worth speaking of, and that it was often, if not generally, left to rot on the ground or thrown to the dogs. I am bound to say that is an absolute falsehood. I can tell the House how the idea arose. There was a very clever picture in Punch by Mr. Du Maurier representing Mr. Winans seated, surrounded by the dead bodies of deer. Well, I am no friend of Mr. Winans, but I may say that he never got so far as to leave the bodies of the deer lie had killed rotting on the ground. Then the rev. Gentleman went on to say that none of the men employed in a deer forest were productive labourers. That is also a very considerable exaggeration, to use the mildest term. I know that these men are used in many other ways than for mere sporting purposes. They are used for the making of roads to a very large extent indeed, and I think sufficient credit has not been given to the proprietors of deer forests for the way in which they have opened up the country by the making of roads.
        MR. BUCHANAN: Nobody goes on them.
        MR. MARJORIBANKS: 0h, that is a mistake. The rev, gentleman further said the life these men lead is demoralising
        1390
        in the extreme. I know them, as a rule, to be temperate, well-educated religious men, often elders in the church to which they belong. I should like the rev. gentleman to make this statement to men so employed in his congregation. I do not think he would find he would long retain his congregation. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire raised the question of the comparative capacities of deer and sheep to stand hard weather. It is quite true that sheep will stand very hard weather at a high altitude. But those that do so are the hogs, the old sheep of the flock. If a farmer were to attempt to keep his ewes and lambs at high altitudes in winter, the result would be so grave that he would very soon have to give up sheep-farming altogether. I admit that if you were to confine the deer to the tops of hills which were covered with snow they would die. But the deer in bad weather goes to the low ground and finds wintering for himself. My hon. Friend (Mr. Sutherland) said many people preferred to shoot deer on sheep runs than in a forest. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend on that point. I have myself killed a great number of deer on sheep grounds, but I would point out that sheep ground is not a bit more available for the purpose of the crofter than forest. Any sheep ground on which it is possible to kill deer is sheep ground in the occupation of large holders, and is, therefore, just as much a desert and just as solitary as a forest.
        MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: My right hon. Friend will admit that it is also possible to kill deer on crofters' ground.
        MR. MARJORIBANKS: I do not think I should expect to kill many deer on common grazing. Reference has been made to the ruins of villages which it is said are to be found in deer forests. It is a very rare thing, as far as my experience goes, to find the ruins of villages in deer-forests. I do not say that they are not to be found, but that the ordinary ruin in a deer forest is that of

        1391
        the shieling where men used to take their cattle out during the summer to feed on the high ground. The hon. Member for Rossshire spoke of having seen ruined villages when walking through the forest now in the occupation of Mr. Winans. Twenty-five years ago, before that land was made forest, I stalked over the whole of it, and I can assure him that such ruins do not exist in the glens—Glen Cannich and Glen Affaric — he speaks of. The hon. Member also spoke of oats being sown for deer, and the fences being taken down so that the deer might go in and eat the crop. His experience must be exceptional. I quite admit that deer are fed in winter in places, but the process ordinarily adopted is to make up ropes of hay and straw, and put them out in the forest for the deer to gnaw. I believe that a noble Lord used once to bring beans from Egypt and put them down on the seashore for the deer to eat. The hon. Member further said that sheep could get through the winter better than deer, because they had so much reserve fat on them, whilst deer had not. I should say that there is no animal known which has such an extraordinary faculty for laying on fat as the deer, and Christmas time is the very time when most fat will be found on a hind. It is only as long as the deer forest combines the greatest amount of good with the least amount of harm that it can go on. It is the requirements of the small holders will have to be considered, and it is perfectly evident that if the land is required for, and capable of, cultivation it ought to be available. I believe that to give effect to the very moderate recommendations of this Commission would be a most useful thing, and a measure of concession to the crofter requirements in the Highlands, which even a Conservative Government might give without sacrificing one jot of its principles. For these reasons I shall support the Resolution of my hon. Friend.
        Du. CLARK: I quite agree with my lion. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire that had it not been for the deer forest the crofter question would
        1392
        not have attained its present acute state. It was not a question between sheep and deer, but between sheep and men, and it would be far better to have the sheep and the men back. But the deer forest mania came in, and the landlords have been able to turn their sheep farms into deer forests, which will pay very well as long as the fashion lasts. But in all probability a new turn will be taken, and then the big landlords will find that deer forests will no more pay than did the sheep farms, and then, perhaps, they will be very glad to get the men back again. Now, Mr. Malcolm's evidence has been quoted. Mr. Malcolm is Secretary to the Society formed by the landlords for the Protection of the Deer Forests. We wanted to get reliable evidence, and we got Mr. Macrae, Secretary to the Land League, to make a series of investigations. He took Mr. Malcolm's report and his book on the subject, which the Duke of Argyll and the Duke of Sutherland eulogised too much, and he pointed out how from 1883 the deer forests in the whole of Rossshire had increased from 9 per cent. to 29 per cent. He also took the Sportsman's Guide for the present year, and showed that the amount had increased 56½ per cent. Now, Mr. Malcolm's interest in the landlords has never yet been called in question, and the figures which he gave to the Committee will be recognised by the Minister of Agriculture, who is a relation of the Duke of Sutherland, as accurate. When the Report of the Commission was published, the Duke returned 145,000 acres as deer forests. Mr. Macrae's researches show that he has increased that quantity by 400 per cent., and he enumerates the names of the farms. I brought these figures under the notice of my hon. Friend (Mr. Sutherland), previous to my giving evidence before the Commission. My hon. Friend told me that these figures were true.
        MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I certify to the farms being correct; but I know nothing as to the figures.
        DR. CLARK: I suppose we can get them verified from the valuation roll of the country. Well, we have had a defence of the deer forests from my right hon. Friend who has replied to the speaker on this side, and if it be true that we have got a case that will not hold water, then the Lord Advocate ought to laugh at us. My right hon. Friend tells us that we are mistaken about houses being in ruins, and that they were mere shielings used in winter. But it is a fact that we not only find houses but chapels in ruins. In the Park Deer Forests there are 18 townships turned into deer forest. I am not at all astonished at the Report of the Royal Commission being so tentative. It was a Commission of big landlords, who held a large number of deer forests, and got big returns from them. If you had a jury of wolves or sheep you would get a Report of much the same character. But even this jury of men who had destroyed the High lands reported that afforestment should be restrained, and that the crofters ought not any longer to be turned away from the forests. Evidence was also given that there ought to be a limit to the altitude. Neither the late nor the present Government, have carried out any of the recommendations of the Commission, and the result is that the deer forest system is growing and growing, and the people have less and less room, and are being huddled together in places where they cannot live and thrive. They are being physically, and perhaps morally, deteriorated. You have had more afforestation since the Commission said that things had better remain as they were. We have had the economic argument trotted out, but if the figures are accurate, we have had the enormous growth in deer forests of something like 50 per cent. in seven or eight years. As the matter now stands, the Government are not going to do anything to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. But the time is coming when we shall have an appeal to the country, and we
        1394
        intend to appeal to the people in the North as to whether the land is to be' used for the good and the well-being of the whole, or for the amusement of the few. We have no doubt that when the time comes the verdict will be given in our favour.
        THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I hope the House will allow me to intervene in this Debate for a few moments I am glad to admire the spirit and ability with which the hon. Member in introducing this Motion, called attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, as well as the sympathy he evinced for the people of the county which he represents in this House. The Government have no reason to complain of the tone of the speech in which the Motion has been introduced, and have certainly no disposition to defend the abuses of deer forests which have been referred to in this Debate. I do not think that any Member of this House will reprobate with greater austerity than we desire to reprobate the alleged conduct of the foreigner who has been mentioned, who holds such large tracts of land, and whose methods of so-called sport have gone far to create widespread dissatisfaction with deer forests in general. I think there is some excuse for the exaggeration which is sometimes indulged in on this question, and on that point I shall have something to say before I sit down, in reply in particular to the hon. Member for Caithness. But what are the facts with which we have to deal? The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion referred to the six objections to the system of deer forests which are quoted in the Report of the Royal Commission, and he told the House that he differed entirely from their conclusions. But I observe with some surprise that the hon. Member only dealt in his speech with the sixth objection by way of disposing of the statements of the Commissioners. In support of his case, the hon. Member referred to the evidence

        1395
        give by the rev. gentleman the minister before the Commission that vension is left to rot on the ground. That evidence, Venture to say, is tainted with a great deal of ignorance prepared to say that that' statement an absolute fabrication. Venison is neither left on the ground to rot, nor is it thrown the dogs. All the venison which is not consumed in the establishment of the owner is widely distributed among the cottagers; and if you put the question to the shepherds or to any of the poorer classes in the Highlands—to those who live in the neighbourhood of the deer forests—you will find that a great part of the substance on which they live throughout the winter is venison, and that it is the only flesh which enters their cottages for consumption. For this they are in debted to the liberality and generosity of the owners of the deer forests in the Highlands. With regard to the rubbish talked by this rev. gentleman as to the bodies being allowed to rot on the ground, I will undertake to say hat greater nonsense was never given utterance to. Now I come to the question of the acreage which has been added to the deer forests since 1884. That is a point on which the hon. Member for Caithness particularly challenged me. The Resolution submitted to this House to-night stigmatises the increase in the acreage as a grave national danger. If it does not amount to such a danger, then, of course, the Resolution falls to the ground. The hon. Member made a number of quotations, and endeavoured to show that in one county alone—the County of Sutherland—511,000 acres had been added to the deer forests since 1884. He was good enough to give us statistics. Since dinner I have put into operation the resources of the telegraph, in order to make myself fully acquainted with the real facts. I will, with the permission of 4 House, reply to his statements. The hon. Member for Caithness said that of Glendhu, consisting of 128,000 acres, had been placed under deer. It has been placed under deer; but it consists of about 35,000 acres, and the information was supplied to me by the agent of the Sutherland in the Lobby 15 minutes ago. I also telegraphed
        1396
        to the Duke of Westminster, who replies that Glendhu was cleared because no tenant offered to pay the rent. He puts the extent of the farmat about 40,000 acres. Let the other instances cited by the hon. Member—

        Name farms

        Hon. Mems. East.

        Actual acreage as supplied to Mr. Chaplin.

        Acres.

        Acres.

        Strathmore of Melness

        80,000

        31,000

        Corry Killoch

        80,000

        10,800

        Ben Hee of Skinness

        40,000

        5,000

        Glen Caniop

        60,000

        33,000

        Coulmore and Coulbeg

        40,000

        19,000

        Kildonan

        80,000

        30,000

        Mudale

        3,500

        3,500

        Thus, while the hon. Member says that 511,000 acres have been added to the deer forests in the County of Sutherland since 1884, according to my information the real amount is 153,000, and the hon. Member was consequently nearly 400,000 acres wrong.
        Dr. CLARK: Still, the acreage has doubled since 1884.
        MR. CHAPLIN: That is the best replay can put before the House. The House will judge of the sort of value they may generally place on the information of the hon. Gentleman. I look upon this as specimen of the want of information which widely prevails in connection with the question. Statements are constantly being placed before the public which are utterly and entirely misleading as to the real merits of the matter. But supposing the hon. Member is right, why have these forests been cleared? It has been because tenants could not be obtained for them as sheep farms. Anyone who, is acquainted with the County of Sutherland must be aware that the Duke of Sutherland lies spent a gigantic fortune in the endeavour to reclaim land for the benefit of the people, and a few years ago no one was more sternly opposed that he to placing land under deer. But when the time arrived when sheep farms Ceased. to pay, in consequence of the enormous; fall in the price of wool, brought about by foreign competition, every proprietor gifted with common sense had to consider by what means he could derive a

        1397
        revenue from his property, a revenue which, in the case of the Duke of Sutherland, is spent entirely in the county and among the people. Surely no one would have been justified in refusing a, rental derived from sporting holdings which it was, impossible any longer to obtain under the old system. The hon. Member stated that sheep will live where deer die in a severe winter. That assertion I venture to contradict across the floor of the. House. I have had some experience in this matter, for it happens that some years ago, in a very wild and inclement district in the County of Sutherland, the sheep on certain farms died off in large numbers, owing to the cold and snowstorms, the tenant was ruined, no one else would take the holdings, and they were converted into a deer forest. I walked over the ground in the early spring, and while I saw hundreds of carcases of sheep, I found but very few of deer. Where one deer had died, sheep had died by the hundred. It was impossible to continue the holding as a sheep farm, and that I believe illustrates the reason why so many of these deer forests have been added in the Highlands. The hon. Member who introduced the Motion said that the failure of the sheep farms afforded a golden opportunity of restoring the crofters to the land. To what sort of land? Why, according to the hon. Member's own showing, to land so destitute that even deer could not live on it in the winter. Upon the economic question it will not be necessary for me to detain the House long. The Royal Commission sifted this question thoroughly, as their Report shows, and they hold that the deer forests afford as much, employment as the sheep farms. As to the food argument, the amount of sheep displacedamounted only to 132,000, out of a total in the United Kingdom of 31,000,000. The food argument, therefore, will not bear investigation for a single moment. The recommendations of the Commissioners for all practical purposes are only two, and relate to forests created after 1884. They have been pressed on the attention of the Government with much energy by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire. The Commissioners recommended that deer forests should not be created in districts less than 1,000ft.
        1398
        above the sea. Such a limitation would be absolutely impracticable, for some of the most suitable districts for deer forests are on the West coast of the Highlands. In many cases upon the West coast the hills rise almost precipitously out of the water, and even within the limits of 1,000 ft., the land would in many cases be useless, except for a deer forest. It is on the immediate coast—where the snow does not lie, that it would be most useful for the purposes of wintering the deer, and such a limit as that which is proposed would exclude this land, which in many cases would be useless for anything else. I am told the question whether certain districts shall be permitted to be converted into deer forests should rest upon the decision of a Government Inspector, but I cannot imagine anything likely to afford a less satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I will merely say, in conclusion, that the Motion rests solely on the contention: that the existence of these deer forests constitutes a grave national danger. I think my right hon. Friend has absolutely disproved that, and there is not now a shred of argument in support of it. The real questions which we have to consider, are those asked by the Commission. Does the occupation of land as deer forests inflict any hardship or injury on any class of the community, and, if so, upon what class? And, secondly, does the occupation of land as deer forests produce any crop or benefit to any class, and, if so, what class? To the first of these propositions the Commission in general terms unhesitatingly say " No," and to the second " Yes." The House of Commons will attach more weight and importance to the opinion of a body of gentlemen who have had the whole evidence placed before them than it will to the opinion of any individual Member of the House. The Commission says that since 1884 the addition to the deer forests in the Highlands has been comparatively small; it has been shown that it has been brought about because there are no other means of laying out the land to advantage. In the course of the operation not a single crofter has been evicted or removed from his holding. That is the case upon which the Government is asked to postpone the Irish land question and other Imperial business,

        1399
        in order to introduce immediate legislation upon this question, so as to remove a national danger which has been shown not to exist. I am bound to say that the demand embodied in the Resolution is so extreme and unreasonable that the Government are justified in refusing it.
        SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his careful and interesting statistics produced at such short notice, but what do they prove? They prove that within the last few years the deer forests in Sutherlandshire have been more than doubled. Besides that, I know of my own knowledge that in the Island of Lewis a very large piece of land has been turned into a deer forest—at the least 50,000 acres. In Sutherlandshire we have an addition of 150,000 acres; and, further than that, the increase of acreage has been going on on a, large scale in Argyllshire, Inverness-shire, and Ross-shire. I affirm there is a national danger in these conversions. Was there no national danger in the recent deer raid in the Lewis? And that was carried on in a forest which fulfilled all the conditions of the Commission, it was on a low elevation, and if the recommendations of the Commission had been carried out, it could not have been turned into a deer forest. If hon. Members wish to know what the danger is let them read the extremely eloquent speech of the hon. Member opposite. The reason he gave for the existence of the forests was that the land would not pay for sheep-farming because of the rents charged by the landlords; and, in consequence of this economic law, the right hon. Gentleman said landlords were justified in turning the land into deer forests, and this was to be done by the frank advice of the Minister of Agriculture. The Commissioners protest, in a most eloquent passage in their Report, against the doctrine that because of any economic question the Highlands should be turned into a desert. The hon. Gentleman said that these 200,000 acres would not support
        1400
        100 crofters. But the Commissioners say each five acres will support a sheep, so that these 200,000 acres should support 40,000 sheep, and I should like to know how many crofter families could be supported by 40,000 sheep. The people of the country have unanimously elected Members who sent them to Parliament to ask that these forests might be trenchantly dealt with, and in the long run they must have another sort of answer from the Government.
        (11.58.) The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 73.—(Div. List, No. 154.)
        Main Question proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        SUPPLY — Committee upon Monday next.

      TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 160.)
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1.
      Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 8.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      MR. SPEAKER: There is an Instruction on the Paper which is out of order. It proposes that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to the acquisition of sites for public elementary schools; but the Bill only provides for the conversion into freeholds of the sites of places of worship held on lease. The subject of elementary schools is also foreign to the Bill.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.
      Clause 1.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday 10th June.
      House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Rosslyn, after the death of his father.
The Lord Byron—Took the oath.

SAT FIRST.
  THE DISASTER AT MANIPUR.

    QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
    THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Viscount opposite, the Secretary of State for India, of which I have given him notice privately. I am anxious to learn whether he is in a position to lay before the House any Papers he has received with reference to the recent deplorable events in Manipur? In doing so, I do not propose to express any opinion whatever upon those occurrences; but I hope your Lordships will allow me to say how very deeply I regret the sad loss of life which took place in connection with them, and especially to express my sorrow at the great loss the Government of India has sustained by the death of Mr. Quinton, the late Chief Commissioner of Assam. I was well acquainted with Mr. Quinton, and had much to do with him in the transaction of business in India, and I always found him a man of marked ability, sound judgment, and great moderation of character. I am quite confident that the Civil Service, of which he was so distinguished an ornament, has sustained a serious loss by his untimely death. The matters connected with the Manipur incident may be the subject of discussion at a, later period; but at the present moment I will only express an earnest hope that Her Majesty's Govern-ment|in India and at (home, in dealing with this question, will bear in mind that every step which is taken in regard to Native States in India is watched with the utmost care, and I may say jealousy, by every native prince and chief. I trust that Her Majesty's Government, in dealing with this question, will be strictly guided by those principles of policy, in regard to the Native States which were established upon the termination
    1270
    of the Mutiny, and which have given to India nearly 40 years of internal peace and contentment, and have done so much to increase the confidence and develop the loyalty of the native princes of that country.
    THE. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Marquess, I should first of all state how entirely I join with him in deploring the loss of so many valued officers in the disaster at Manipur. I should like, also, to join with him in what he has said as to the late Mr. Quinton, whose loss I deeply regret. He had been in the service of the Government of India for 35 years, and he had risen to his high position entirely by his own exertions. He had been a member of the Viceroy's Legislative Council, and had won the confidence of no less than three successive, Viceroys —the noble Marquess opposite (Ripon), the Marquess of Dufferin, and the present Viceroy, the Marquess of Lansdowne; and it was only last year, in consequence of the high esteem in which he was held, that he was appointed to the somewhat difficult post of Chief Commissioner of Assam. I deeply deplore his loss, and I desire to say that I quite join in what has been done by the Viceroy and his Council in India in publishing remarks in a special Gazette with reference to the officers who lost their lives. On behalf of my Council, as well as on my own part, I entirely endorse all that has been said by the noble Marquess, and I should like to express my deepest sympathy with the widow of Mr. Quinton and with the relatives of the other officers who lost their lives on that sad occasion. With regard to the question as to Papers which the noble Marquess has put to me, I have only one Despatch from the Viceroy of India which brings matters down very nearly to the end of February. That Despatch reached me on the 23rd of March, exactly one day after this fatal disaster took place at Manipur. Of course, I shall have no objection whatever in course of time to lay that Despatch upon the Table of your Lordships' House; but I do not think it would be right to produce it until more information is gained as to the whole circumstances, from later Despatches, which I have no doubt I shall receive

    1271
    from the Viceroy of India, and which will be presented in order to completely furnish the information which I agree ought undoubtedly to be laid at once upon the Table. I do not know that I have anything further to say in answer to the noble Marquess; but I can assure him, if he wants assurance, that there is no person more likely to treat the Native States of India with justice, whatever may have been the provocation given, than the present Viceroy, the Marquess of Lansdowne.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ORDER (STIRLING AND ST. NINIANS) BILL.

      COMMITTEE.
      House in Committee (according to order).
      THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND(The Marquess of):I have to ask your Lordships to assent to one or two Amendments upon this Bill. It is to confirm an Order by the Boundaries Commissioners who have been selected under the Local Government (Scotland) Act. The object of the Amendments is simply to make one or two alterations which have been found necessary in consequence of misunderstanding by the Boundary Commissioners in making their Order. One of the misapprehensions was that the boundaries of the Burgh of Stirling were co-terminous as regards the municipal boundaries and the boundaries of the Royal Burgh; and the other was as to an understanding or an arrangement previously come to between the Parishes of Stirling and St. Ninians. With those observations I will ask your Lordships to assent to the Amendments which I now propose.
      Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.

    MARRIAGE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 79.)

      COMMITTEE.
      House in Committee (according to order).
      Clause 1.
      Leap GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I have to move an Amendment in order to
      1272
      more clearly indicate what the Bill does. In consequence of what was said the other night I think this is necessary. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity of communicating with those who are interested in the measure as I should like to have done, and, therefore, I can only propose such Amendments as have occurred to me, and state the reasons why it appears to me most of them ought to be accepted. When we come to the Preamble I wish to insert words not stating that the Act of George IV. was passed, but that it is expedient to amend the Act, and to leave out the subsequent lines with regard to that Act being in force in respect of marriages according to the rites of the Church of England, and to the expediency of altering and amending the Act in the certain particulars mentioned. I also propose to modify the Short Title Clause, which stands that " This Act may be cited as the Church of England Marriage Amendment Act, 1891." That sounds to me an inconveniently long short title. It is really a Bill for improving the condition of things, chiefly in reference to the law affecting marriages by banns in England and in regard to the places in which they are solemnised, or where it is lawful for persons to put up their banns of marriage. The object of providing a short title, of course, is that it shall be short, but it ought not, at the same time, to be made so short as to be misleading; and it appears to me that the best title would be to call the Act " Banns of Marriage Amendment Act." It is substantially an Act for amending the law in reference to publishing banns of marriage and nothing else. There is no occasion to have in the words " Church of England," because there are no other banns published in England.
      Amendment moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out " Church of England," and to insert " banns of."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: It will be obvious to your Lordships that the only objection to what the noble and learned Lord proposes is that this Bill deals with marriages by licence nearly as much as with marriages by banns, and, therefore,

      1273
      I think that that title might be considered rather misleading. For myself, I should prefer putting it" Acts "—in the plural—thus leaving it in the form of " Church of England Marriage Acts." However, if the noble and learned Lord presses his Motion, I shall not object to his words.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I make the suggestion for this reason: I think it better that the short title should indicate what the Bill chiefly does. No doubt the Bill deals also with licences, but in a very small degree. We shall find as we go on that the majority of the clauses have relation to the publication of banns. I may mention, as an instance, that there was an Ecclesiastical Act passed not many years ago, namely, the Clergy Pluralities Act Amendment Bill, as it was called, though it had a great many clauses relating to getting rid of clergymen who do not do their duty, and I think very many of the clergy were much surprised when they found out what had been done. This title might therefore, I think, be allowed to go for amending the law relating to banns of marriage without reference to licences. Probably it could be still more shortly cited as the " Marriage Amendment Act, 1891," and I will move to omit the words " Church of England " from the title.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 2.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Clause 2 is, I think, quite unnecessary, and is not altogether correct. But, perhaps, it is enough to say it is unnecessary, because the Act does not say, in fact, either directly or indirectly, anything about any marriages except those performed according to the rites of the Church of England. This clause is, therefore, entirely superfluous. Besides that, there are other technical difficulties which I do not think it right to trouble your Lordships with now.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: The real purpose of the clause is to fix the date from which the Act shall apply.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: The date cannot be fixed so exactly in this way, because marriages by licences or banns
      1274
      may be performed at any time within three months after the licence has been got or the banns put up. What you really want to provide for, I suppose, is that the Act shall come into operation at a certain time. In an Act of this sort, which is purely an enabling one, there does not seem to be any objection to the Act coming into operation when it has received the Royal Assent; but if anybody thinks it worth while to provide that the Act shall come into operation on a certain day, it must not be done in this way; for there will be one kind of law in existence when people begin to put up their banns, and another kind of law in existence when they come actually to be married. That is rather inconvenient, I think.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I think, perhaps, after what has been said, it would be better that this clause should go out now; and if it is necessary to put in something else in substitution for it, we can do so in Standing Committee.
      On Question, that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, negatived.
      LORD GRIMTHORPENow, my Lords, as Clause 2 has gone out of the Bill, it seems to me this is a better place to put in the Interpretation Clause than at the end. I confess, when I first read the Bill, I was a good deal puzzled by some of the phrases use in it. By the last clause but one (Clause 19), it is required that copies of the Act shall be sent to the ministers of every parish in England, one of them to be kept with the marriage register by the clergymen where banns are to be put up, and so on. It is desirable, I think, that it should read as easily as possible, and, as it is a very common thing to put the Interpretation Clause at the beginning of Acts of Parliament, I think this would be a convenient place for it. Therefore, I propose to insert here some interpretations. I will take them separately. The first would be this, that " in this Act the following words shall mean or include the following things, unless the context otherwise requires." Then it goes on to define "church." That is the material word all through the Act; " Church' shall mean a church or chapel of the Church of England in which marriages

      1275
      may lawfully be solemnised." But, as there has been some question raised on account of some small number of those churches and chapels where one is now lawful without the other, it is, perhaps, necessary to add, " or banns be published," I must ask your Lordships' permission to explain a little on that point. There is a clause in an Act of 6 George IV. which recites that there were a certain number of small chapels which had the privilege of performing marriages .without having the banns published in them. They were allowed to continue the privilege by that Act, which had been destroyed by the previous Act of 4 George IV. unintentionally. I suppose Marriages were allowed to be performed in churches in which the banns had been lawfully published. I therefore propose to add here the words, " or which banns have been published." That will include other places than churches.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I had supposed that the noble and learned Lord had overlooked the fact to which he has referred when he wrote his Amendment; and, after consulting my advisers, I thought it would be best corrected by making an alteration in the definition of the word " parish," but I do not object to what is proposed here.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then, my Lords, the next is the definition of the word " parish." It is desirable to add at the end some other words. I propose that " parish " shall mean every old undivided parish, and every one from which another has been cut off and has become the whole or pert of a new parish for ecclesiastical purposes under any Act of Parliament. That embraces both parishes under Lord Blandford's Act, and also parishes which have become so under special and Private Acts of which I know there are some existing. Then it goes on—" and every such new parish in which there is a church where marriages may lawfully be solemnised," and I propose to add "or banns published."
      THE BISHOP of LONDON: I think it would be a little better if the noble and learned Lord would consent to this alteration: that, instead of " every one," we should say " every old and undivided parish and every old parish from which a part has been cut off."
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I will tell your Lordships why I do not put in the word " old " there. A parish may have a slice cut off when it is anything but old. If you keep in the word " old " it has a kind of technical meaning, and there may be some difficulty in construing it afterwards.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I would rather have the words " every parish."
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: That may be, but I want to get rid of the word " old." Let it be, if you like, " every parish from which any portion has been cut off."
      THE CHAIRMAN: Then it will read, "and every parish from which any portion has been cut off and has become," and so on.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Yes. Then the next definition is—
      " Usual place of abode' shall mean any ordinary residence of the person referred to whether he has more than one or not, or his residence for fifteen days of the thirty immediately preceding his making an affidavit or declaration of residence to lead a licence or applying for publication of bands."
      It would be better, instead of using the word "residence," to keep the same word as is used in other cases—" usual place of abode." Those are the words used in other Acts. But I thought that as the word " usual " alone would allow of some laxity of interpretation, it would, perhaps, be as well to put in " for fifteen days immediately preceding." Of course, where a person has only one ordinary residence, or where he generally dwells, that would be sufficient. The reason I have put in those words is that there has been found a practical difficulty arising from the fact that people have been afraid to go away from their homes during the 15 days previous to the celebration of the marriage for fear they should be held to be breaking the Act. I think the proviso will be sufficient for the purpose, but I will await what may be said upon it by the right rev. Prelate. I put it in that way that his usual place of abode shall be for this purpose his residence for 15 days immediately preceding his making the affidavit of residence in applying for a licence or for publication of banns. I think we had better, perhaps, add another definition to that which may be taken separately, for the phrase " where they generally dwell." I would

      1277
      therefore, put it in this form if the right rev. Prelate does not object, " usual place of abode or where they usually dwell," omitting the words "for fifteen days of the thirty immediately preceding."
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: do not object to that.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: The next is the definition of the word " minister." I am not quite sure, but I am inclined to think that during the absence of the incumbent of the parish the " principal curate " would be enough. I should have thought the principal curate was the proper person to put in, not any curate who may be acting in the parish.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I think myself it would be better, because the clergyman acting may not always be the principal curate; if the noble and learned Lord does not object, that during the absence of the incumbent " minister" shall include any curate or other officiating minister of the parish or church.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Very well.
      Moved, " That the following New Clause:
      In this Act the following words shall mean or include the following things, unless the context otherwise requires:

      " Church " shall mean a church or chapel of the Church of England in which marriages may lawfully be solemnised, or in which banns have been published:

      " Parish " shall mean every old undivided parish, and every parish from which any portion has been cut off and has become the whole or part of a new parish for ecclesiastical purposes under any Act of Parliament, and every such new parish in which there is a church where marriages may lawfully be solemnised:

      " Usual place of abode " shall mean any ordinary residence of the person referred to, whether he has more than one or not, or his residence for fifteen days of the thirty immediately preceding his making an affidavit or declaration of residence to lead a licence or applying for publication of banns:

      " Minister," except with reference to fees due to the incumbent of the arish, shall include during his absence any curate or other officiating minister of the parish or church.

      —stand in substitution of Clause 2,"—(The Lord Grimthorpe,)—agreed to.
      Clause 3.
      Verbal Amendments made.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I have an Amendment with regard to the publication of banns in the ecclesiastical parish where the parties dwell. I propose this Amendment with the view to minimise what I regard as the very singular position of the Marriage Law rejecting the residence as the usual place of abode. A man may have had his abode in a parish for 20 years and may be thoroughly well known to everybody there, but a fortnight before the publication he moves jute another parish where he is unknown, and his residence would, of course, be there. Thereupon the banns are published in the parish of his new pl ice of residence where people cannot possibly know anything about the man, or his character, or the circumstances under which the marriage takes place. What I propose is, that in every case the man shall be asked what is his usual place of abode, and that upon that inquiry the banns should be published there. If there be no usual place of abode, you might then accept the minimum provision provided in the Act; but I think such a provision as that would remove what I think is rather a scandal in our present law, that is to say, the ease with which a man may leave a parish where he is well-known and go, just before the marriage, to another, where the circumstances of the marriage he is intending to make are unknown. That always proceeds from one of two reasons: either the man has good reasons for keeping his marriage secret, and, of course, in that case no facilities should be given him, or he may wish to be married in some particular church which he may select, and of course there is no reason why he should not be allowed to be married in the church of his choice. But this Bill actually provides that a man may be married in any church within the whole diocese, and, therefore, the minimum period of residence as relating to the latter case ceases to have any real object, and it. remains only to snit the case of those who wish for good reasons, with a view to their known character, to hide the circumstances of their marriage. I think the clause which I propose will

      1279
      meet the difficulty for that purpose, omitting the word " dwell" in this clause.
      Moved,
      In page 1, line 26, to leave out (" dwell") and insert (" have their usual place of abode, or if there be no such usual place of abode then in such church or chapel as may be situated within the parish in which they have had their residence continuously for not less than fifteen days previous to the first publication of the banns.")—(The Bishop of Lichfield.)
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I confess I am surprised at the proposition of my right rev. Brother, because it would in many cases make the conditions so stringent as to be really very oppressive. To insist upon it would be a hardship in a great many cases, and to require a continuous residence within the parish of not less than 15 days previous to the publication of the banns, and only to allow the publication there if the man confessed he had no usual place of abode would curtail the liberty of the subject in regard to marriage very greatly indeed, and the result would be to drive a great many more people to the Registrar's office than are driven there at present. Therefore, I am not very well disposed to accept this Amendment.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I quite agree with what has been said by the right rev. Prelate who spoke last. If you begin introducing these things into the law it would lead to a tremendous and almost boundless tyranny. What is it to us where people may choose to get married? Everybody has a right to get married as they please—of course, not within the prohibited degrees; and I am very glad to find that the right rev. Prelate who spoke last declines to accept the Amendment, and that he is inclined to defend the liberty of the subject instead of allowing this aggression upon it.
      THE BISHOP or LICHFIELD: I do not press the Amendment.
      on question, that the word " dwell" stand part of the Clause, agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have an Amendment, in lines 26 and 27, to leave out " the persons to be married," and insert " they." This is more of a grammatical nature than anything else, but it is no use loading the clause with unnecessary words. It cannot possibly make any difference, because you go
      1280
      on to provide that "Where the persons to be married shall dwell in divers ecclesiastical parishes" the banns shall be published in the church of the parish where each of them dwell. You have already, therefore, provided for it; but I should prefer the common word " different " to " divers."
      Amendment moved, in lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words (" the persons to be married ") and insert (" they.") —(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have another Amendment—to leave out " ecclesiastical " and " chapel " with any connecting word throughout the Bill. They occur several times in this clause.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I think it would be better not to omit the word " ecclesiastical " here, because, as I happen to know, there is perpetual confusion among people between the old parish and the new ecclesiastical parish taken from it; and what is meant here is distinctly the ecclesiastical and not the other parish.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think it would be well to avoid confusion, but I should like to say a few words before we get to the consideration of " ecclesiastical parishes." It is suggested to me by a very high authority that I was right in the opinion I have expressed with regard to the word "divers." That word implies a good many, and the parties in these cases will certainly not reside in a good many, though they may in two different parishes. I beg, therefore, to substitute that word.
      Amendment moved, in line 27, to omit ("divers,") and insert (" different.") — (Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Now with regard to the word " ecclesiastical," I think it safer to leave the word out throughout the Bill, than to put it here and there only. As we have already defined that the word " parish " means ecclesiastical parish, we had better not, I. think, raise a question about it by sticking in " ecclesiastical " in one or two places.
      Amendment moved, in lines 23 and 25, to leave out the word " ecclesiastical."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Other Amendments made.
      Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I propose, after Clause 3, to insert a clause, which is really necessary, however it may be done. The way of doing it I am willing to leave to the right rev. Prelate; but I would say this: I do not think I made it quite as plain as I ought to have clone on the Second Reading that in a great many churches there is now, practically, no legal or proper way of publishing banns at all. In many churches there is very often no Communion Service at the common Morning Service, and your Lordships also know the Nicene Creed occurs in what is popularly called the ante-Communion Service. Consequently, if that Creed is not read, there is absolutely no legal time for publishing banns In some cases they are published at the conclusion of the second lesson, and in others at the conclusion of such Morning Service as they have. That is all irregular, but I know that for a long time the practice prevailed of publishing the banns always after the second lesson till Baron Alderson, when the case came before him, pronounced it illegal, except at Evening Service under the Act of 4 Geo. IV., c. 76, and that stopped it These things grow up by degrees, but I can hardly think anybody would wish to go on in an illegal manner after his attention has been called to the fact. The practice in this respect has grown up by the change of habit in dividing the Morning Prayers. It would be quite absurd to publish banns of marriage at an early Communion Service, the very object being to give publicity at a time when the congregation in the church is largest. I think it is quite plain that the time has come when there ought to be fresh legislation on this point, and the first thing for us to do is that we should make up our minds at what period of the service it is best that banns should 'be published in order to secure the greatest publicity. I do not think anybody will deny that the way I have proposed to do it here is the best method of doing it.
      1282
      I am only proposing to follow the course which was followed in the Act of George IV., adapting it to the circumstances which have altered considerably since that time. In the first place, the time fixed for publishing banns should, of course, continue to be on Sundays. Let me tell those who do not know it that an alteration was made in the Act of George IV. upon the canons made in Convocation, which some persons fancy are to govern us, but which have never done so. The canons allowed holy-days; the Acts of Parliament do not. It should be done on Sundays after the Nicene Creed has been said at the usual Morning Service, and I suppose we should be right in saying, " at the usual Morning Service after ten o'clock, or, if that Creed should not be used at that service," which would provide for the case of every church in London, at the end of the Morning Service, then the banns shall be published at the end of Evening Prayer, if there is no such Morning Service, as was done in the Act of George IV. But since then another change has taken place. There has come into fashion the holding of two afternoon or evening services; and of the two the later or, as it is more commonly called, " Evening Service," in distinction from the earlier afternoon service, is much preferred, and is, therefore, the time when the greatest publicity can be secured for banns. Therefore, I propose that they shall be published in the evening, the latest service of the day. That is as commonly understood, but then comes in another change of fashion. In order to meet the wishes and habits of various people, some of the clergy have not only early Morning Services but what they call " Midnight Services," and it is necessary to "provide for those cases. If, therefore, we say " the latest service of the day before 9 o'clock," and "at the usual Morning Service after 10 o'clock," we shall have provided against both publishing banns at Midnight Services, and before 10 o'clock in the morning, which are not convenient for the purpose. I do not know that I have anything further to say beyond this, that if anybody objects to adding this at all, all I can say is that Parliament has done these things ever since the time of Edward I., or rather since Henry VIII.
      Amendment moved,
      After Clause 3, to insert the following clause:—
      (" The time fur publishing banns shall be on Sundays after the Nicene Creed at the usual morning service after ten o'clock, or, if that creed is not used then, at the end of Morning Prayer. If there is no such morning service, the banns shall be published at the end of Evening Prayer at the latest service of the day before nine o'clock."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should not object to the insertion of this clause if the noble and learned Lord will give some freedom to bring it more into accordance with the modern practice. I would suggest instead of saying if the Nicene Creed is not used " At the end of Morning Prayer," that it should be " After the second lesson at Morning Prayer," and instead of saying "At the end of Evening Prayer," say " After the Second Lesson at Evening Prayer; " because it is obvious that if you are to publish banns while people are in the act of going out of church it would be practically useless. It is much better not to disturb the present ordinary practice.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have not the least objection. The alteration that it should be done at the end of the Second Lesson was made or supposed to be made by Parliament in the year 1823. The practice went on for a good many years until Baron Alderson decided that it was a mistake. But if the right rev. Prelate prefers that time by all means let it be so. I only thought it would be better to put it at the end of Morning or Evening Prayer, and not to interrupt the prayers by banns.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: That would in some cases be the end of the service. At many services them is no sermon.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: As to publishing banns at the end of Evening Prayer, I think it cannot be conceived how great is the interruption to the solemn thoughts which have been evoked; and if there is any technical difficulty about the expression " At the end of Evening Prayer," as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, the publication of the banns might be made at the end of the service. It seems singularly irreverent to many people.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Non nostrum est tantas componere lites—that is all I can say.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I do not wish to divide the House on this point, but I still think as it is the practice not to do it at the end of the service it would be preferable to put it "After the Second Lesson at Morning Prayer, and after the Second Lesson at Evening Prayer."
      THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: In order that somebody who is not sitting on the same Benches as the right rev. Prelates may express an opinion upon this matter, I will say a few words. I hope sincerely your Lordships will give effect to the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate, and enact that the time for the publication of the banns shall be after the Second Lesson. I confess I am somewhat surprised at hearing the argument of the right rev. Prelate who has previously spoken. As far as my experience goes I do not know that anybody who goes to Church has ever felt any feeling of irreverence from the publication of banns at that time. The object being that the banns shall be announced in the most public manner, I cannot conceive any objection to the time as proposed by the right rev. Prelate, as the congregation would then be most numerous, and it is the time which is almost universal in this country, that is after the end of the Second Lesson.
      Amendment amended, to read as follows:—
      "The time for publishing banns shall be on Sundays after the Nicene Creed at the usual morning service at 10 o'clock, or, if that creed is not used, after the second lesson at morning prayer. If there is no such morning service, the banns shall be published after the second lesson at evening prayer."
      Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 4.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I propose to amend this clause. It says, "When banns shall have been published as aforesaid the marriage shall be solemnised" as provided. I propose to leave out " shall" and to insert " may at any time within three months." "Shall" is obviously wrong, and for the information of all sorts of unlearned people it is

      1285
      +better to tell them at once that it may be within three months as provided by the law already. It is always much better to have a complete Act of Parliament than to refer people backwards and forwards from one to another.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I will accept that.
      Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, leave out (" shall ") and insert (" may at any time within three months.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: The next Amendment is what may be called a grammatical or structural one. It seems to be quite unnecessary to have two sub-sections here. I have always protested against unnecessary sub-sections, and I propose to leave out (1) and (2) so that the clause may read straight on. I merely move the omission of those two little numerals.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is necessary to move the omission of numbers.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then, as a matter of form, I will move to insert the word " or " in the place of (2), so that it shall read that—
      " The marriage may at any time within three months be solemnised either in one of the churches or chapels in, which the banns shall have been published, or in any other church or chapel,"
      Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, to insert the word " or."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Verbal Amendments made.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Perhaps I may put now the omission of the word " chapel " wherever it occurs in this clause with any connecting word.
      Amendments agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: There is one more Amendment in this clause. It is in the 2nd sub-section, after the words " provided that," leaving out the rest of the clause, and substituting an Amendment. This, again, is for the convenience of reading. It would, I think, be better to let it run in the negative form, that—
      " The marriage shall not he solemnised in a church where the banns have not been published without the consent of the minister
      1286
      nor until seven days after production to him of certificates of publication of the banns at the churches whet e they were published, and "—
      this is omitted by mistake in the Bill— "not forbidden by any person having the right to stop the marriage "—that is a parent or guardian. And then it provides for entry in the banns book. That is all that I propose by this Amendment. I rather infer that the right rev. Prelate wishes to have the place where the marriage is to be solemnised published also. That is in the Bill as it stands, and I make the same remark upon that as I did upon the other part of the Bill, that putting in so many restrictions will only cause unnecessary difficulty. In addition to that it will be extremely inconvenient and tiresome when a great many banns have to be published to have thrust in that " such-and-such a marriage will be solemnised in such-and-such a church," and altogether it will make the thing so disagreeable that there is sure to be some reaction against it, and very possibly the whole will be swept away.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: The reason of the thing is clear enough. In the present condition of matters banns are very often published where the parties are unknown, and those persons, therefore, who have the right of interference have no means of intervening; whereas if the church where the marriage is to be solemnised is publicly announced at the same time as the publication of the banns takes place, it will then be possible for those persons to come forward and take whatever steps may be necessary to prevent the solemnisation of the marriage. Therefore, I think it would be much better that the publication of the banns should include an announcement of the church where the marriage is to take place. I think in the case also of marriages before a Registrar, if the marriage is not to be performed in the Registrar's office it is always necessary to state where it is to be performed. In cases, too, of marriage by licence, the licence contains a distinct statement to that effect. There ought, therefore, I think to be some precautions taken in these cases as is taken in cases of marriage at a Registrar's office, or by licence.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think the right rev. Prelate has not observed that that is exactly what I have done. I provide for an entry to be made in the banns book of where the marriage is to be solemnised; but he wants to have it published in church. Probably the right rev. Prelate knows that that very kind of publicity was first introduced into what I may call the Dissenters' Act; but it was struck out some years afterwards. It was found to be extremely disagreeable. I have exactly followed that precedent here. If the place where the marriage is to be performed is entered in the book, any one interested in the marriage who has heard the banns in the church, can look in the book or ask the clerk, and follow such marriage to the church where it is to take place. But I would further ask: What can the person do if he does follow it? He has no power to do anything at all. He has power to forbid the banns; but when once it comes to the actual marriage he has nothing to do with it whatever. Therefore, it seems to me, that to provide for such announcements is simply wearying the congregation—making the uninterested public who are present, angry, by prescribing that winch does nothing at all; whereas all that is really necessary is provided for in this clause exactly as it is provided for in the Registry Acts.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I do not contend very earnestly for it I confess; but, nevertheless, I know that a large number of people feel that if people are to be at liberty to have marriages performed at any church in the diocese there ought to be very distinct means of ascertaining beforehand where the marriage is to take place. If the noble and learned Lord proceeds on the supposition that where the banns have been published, and the persons who are to be married are in a position in which the marriage would be wrong, it ought to be stopped, but nobody could stop it; that would not be the case where the persons were minors and their parents heard of it. They might not hear of it until the banns were published; but then they should be able to go to the church and stop it.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have provided for that by giving the information
      1288
      in the banns book. That is a book which is open to them to look at just as would be the case in the Registrar's office.
      THE ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY: Is it not generally taken to be meant by the publication of banns of marriage in a church that the persons named are to be married in that church or the church of the other parish named? It is not supposed that they would be married at perhaps considerable distances away, elsewhere in the diocese, and no doubt the people who heard the announcements would naturally assume that the same custom prevailed in the absence of a statement to the contrary.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Matters of this kind rapidly become the subject of general knowledge, and it would very soon become known that people need not be married at the particular church, but could be married elsewhere, and as I said before, they have only to go and look at the book, and they can see at once.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I shall not make any further objection.
      Amendment moved,
      In line 8 to leave out from (" that ") to the end of the clause and insert (" the marriage shall not be solemnised in any church where the banns have not been published without the consent of the minister thereof, nor until the end of seven days after the production to him of a certificate of due publication of the banns at each of the churches where they were published, and not forbidden by any person having a right to stop the marriage. And an entry shall be made in the banns book before any publication of banns of the church where it is intended to solemnise the marriage, unless it is one in which the banns are published.")—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then after Clause 4 I propose to insert a new clause which is really consequential on what has been done already in reference to the publication of banns. I hope nobody will think hereafter that I am wanting in due respect to great dignitaries, for I propose to give to them the power and duty in this matter of making alterations in the rubrics instead of the Queen's Printers and the authorities of Oxford and Cambridge 'Universities, for the purpose of making the rubrics conform to the Acts of Parliament upon

      1289
      this subject. I now propose that the two Archbishops shall make such alterations in the rubrics relating to the Marriage Service in the Prayer Book as will make them agree with this Act notifying the same to the Queen's Printers and to the Vice-Chancellor of the two Universities in order that they may be printed in the Prayer Book.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should not myself have been willing to put in a clause of this sort. It would seem to be more appropriate for one of the Archbishops to move the insertion of such a clause; but if the Primate is willing to allow it to be inserted I shall certainly not object. If, however, he objects to it I shall support the objection.
      THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I shall not make any objection to it.
      Amendment moved, after Clause 4, to insert as a new clause—
      " The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are hereby authorised, subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, to make such alterations in the rubrics after the Nicene Creed and before and in the Marriage Service in the Prayer Book as will make them agree with this Act, and those rubrics shall be so printed in all Prayer Books after such alterations have been notified by order of Her Majesty to the Queen's Printers and the Vice Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge Universities."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause 5.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I propose that this clause shall read somewhat differently, so that it shall read that the publication of a seaman's banns of marriage may be made in any church in the parish where he usually resides when on land. That was the meaning of the clause as understood on the former occasion.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: That is really a verbal alteration, and I do not object to it.
      Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from (" in ") to the end of the clause, and to insert ("any church of the parish in which he usually dwells when not at sea.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 6.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: This clause raises a question upon which there was
      1290
      a discussion the other night about the information to be given by the parties to the minister. I think all the information we ought to require to be given is that which, in the interest of the public, we are legally entitled to demand. Now, what is it that the public are entitled to demand? They are entitled to know that the marriage is not an illegal one, that it is not within the prohibited degrees, and that the proper persons to consent, where consent is required, have consented. But, my Lords, that requires some qualification, because of the state of the law on the subject. The law was altered by the Act of George IV. from what it had been before. It had been before for some time the law that the consent must be proved as a positive thing. It was then altered by the regulations for putting up the banns, leaving the parents and guardians to object if they thought fit. That was a material alteration, and I think your Lordships would be slow to go back again to the former practice and alter it after, now, a good many years' experience. As I have mentioned previously, it dated back from the time of Lord Hardwick, in the reign of George II. down to the Marriage Act of 1823. Now, beyond that, I confess, in my opinion we have no business to go; and when it is proposed to require that people should tell their ages, may I take the liberty of asking why people should be bound to do that when they are of full age, and to tell their age under penalties for perjury? You are claiming under this Act to do that which is only required for public purposes under the Census—where it really is of consequence that people should state their exact ages. But there is no penalty there. What does it matter to us whether a woman who is going to be married is 25 or 30 or 35? I do not think we should sanction such inquiries as a piece of legislation. I first propose to leave out the words " prior to " the last publication, because the clause is not English, as it stands.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I do not object.
      Amendment moved, in page 2, line 28, to leave out (" prior to the ") and insert ("their.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Then the next is to leave out the words " of the banns " and from " church" to the end of the clause, inserting instead, a provision that the clergyman may require a written statement signed by the person applying, containing the abodes of the parties within the parish, and a statement that they are both of full age, and if not, whether they have obtained the consent of parents or guardians. That, as I have told your Lordships, is an advance upon the present law; I warn you of that, and it is for you to say whether you like to adopt it or not. It then goes on to pro vide that the person applying knows of no legal impediment by reason of relationship within the prohibited degrees, or from any other cause. The minister, after receiving the statement shall allow the publication to proceed (unless he ascertains it to be false,) and is not bound to ask the parties any further questions, informing them that they are liable to prosecution if they sign such statement falsely. I ought to have mentioned the other night that the Bill as far as this matter goes is founded, I think upon a misapprehension of the Act of 1823, for there is in that Act a power which really seems to me to be big enough as it stands, at least as to the exact place of residence. However, if it is desired to re-enact it here I do not know that it matters. There is a provision there that no parson or curate shall be obliged to publish banns unless the parties shall seven days before the publication deliver a notice in writing stating their true christian and surnames, their place of abode within the parish, and the time they have lived there. If that provision had been borne in mind I cannot help thinking that a good deal of this Bill need not have been drawn. It is riot the first time, I may say, that I. have known instances of a Bill being drawn for the purpose for effecting what there are already sufficient provisions for in the Statute Book. The Dilapidations Act, which has been absolutely condemned by a Committee of the House of Commons, was drawn in entire forgetfulness that in an Act of Elizabeth, provision is made for everything that was really wanted. Here it is done again, but, as I said before, I have no objection to it, because I have no desire to prevent
      1292
      any Statute being made complete on the face of it.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to explain, because the noble and learned Lord made a great point of this the other night, that the form in which this clause with the different questions in its Schedule are cast is not due to any desire on the part of the clergy or on the part of the Bishops to make inquisition into the private affairs of anybody. But the fact of the case is this: the Lower House of Convocation, and afterwards the Upper House with them, represented that it would be of great advantage to have a distinct schedule or form which the parties were to fill up, and accordingly the drawing up of such a form or Schedule was urged, and it was entrusted to legal hands. Of course it may be said I was in fault, and I am perhaps to blame for too implicitly trusting the profession of which the noble and learned lord is a representative, and I should not, perhaps, have left it entirely to legal hands, but should have asked the clergy to do it, and if I had done so the clergy certainly would not have asked such questions as that people should give their ages, because it is surely quite enough to know whether the parties are of full age or not, and with how old a person is precisely, we have no business at all. The reason why the Schedule was drawn in that shape was simply this: It is found in dealing with uneducated people that questions of this sort must be minced up very small for them or else they will not understand what you are about. The idea was that it would be much easier to put it to them in the form of question and answer than simply to leave it in the general form which the clause provides. I do not object to the noble and learned Lord's way of putting it in the least. The result of this, of course, would be that the clergyman would of necessity have the duty of eliciting the information involved in the answers to each one of these questions, which would be inconvenient. But it is obviously very inconvenient not to put in correct form what is required to be filled up. I think it better that we should have a Schedule, but if the noble and learned Lord objects to its form he may work his will upon it, and if the lawyers see any necessity

      1293
      to contend about the matter I can assure them that the Bishops will listen to them with great equanimity. As it is, I really think it would be better to keep the Schedule even if we adopt the noble and learned Lord's proposed clause. That clause is, I think, very well drawn, and I am quite willing to accept it, but I should nevertheless like to put in the Schedule, if the noble and learned Lord does not object, in order that we may have some guidance, and partly, too, for educating the people in the matter. We can amend it, no doubt, and I think with very great effect. I should like to add to the noble and learned Lord's clause what really seems to me of considerable importance, namely, the words that
      " The delivery of such statement to the minister shall relieve him from the duty of making inquiries as to the matters therein contained."
      I think it is of importance that it should be distinctly stated that the clergyman is then to be no longer responsible. He has these things put before him; he has to accept them upon the assurance that any person who makes a false statement will be punished for doing so, and I think that being the case clergymen ought to be distinctly relieved from all responsibility of finding out whether the facts are so or not.
      Loan GRIMTHORPE: That I intended by providing that the clergyman is not bound or authorised to make further inquiry. The moment you provide that a man shall make no further inquiry he ceases to be responsible. I do not think there is anything needed more than that. That has reference to the Schedule, but I am now discussing 6, and certainly, as I understood the other night, such precise inquisition is not desired by the Ecclesiastical Authorities; but the strange thing is that I now find in Clause 6 the age of the parties demanded which the right rev. Prelate says he is willing to give up. I think, therefore, I was right in imputing to somebody or other substantially the inquiries which are directed in Clause 6, and also in the Schedule. If convenient to your Lordships, I am willing to say what I have to say about the Schedule now. It is all very well to make provisions of this kind in reference to places like a Registrar's
      1294
      office where you have all necessary books and Schedules provided at public expense, and officers for the performance of such duties; but who is to provide all that is required for this Schedule here? Are the clergy to do it? Are they to give the attendance required upon all these people? Your Lordships are aware that is not the case now, for the banns are put in through the clerk, and if you do not allow these things to be filled in through the clerk the parties must do it themselves, or the clergyman from such information as he can get. Beyond the suggestion he has made, I understand the right rev. Prelate to be satisfied, otherwise, with my clause.
      THE BISHOP OP LONDON: If it is quite certain as a matter of law that these words will carry it, I desire nothing more.
      Loan GRIMTHORPE: I think your Lordships may take it as a legal dictum, now, that exemption from being bound or authorised to ask any further questions is quite sufficient to relieve from responsibility.
      THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say a few words upon this clause. Hitherto I have refrained from saying anything in the matter because I propose to attend the Standing Committee, where I thought a good deal of this might be much more conveniently discussed and Amendments disposed of; but with regard to this particular Amendment, I am a little apprehensive that if we adopt it in its present language there may be some difficulty arising in regard to requiring a statement in writing of the particulars demanded. Still, anybody who gets a licence has to give these particulars, and I should strongly object, myself, to its being left optional with the clergyman to require these particulars to be furnished for the purpose of public convenience, and in the public interest. I think he ought to be bound to do so. But, as I have said, I would rather not interfere at this stage upon this mere drafting of the Bill, and I merely wanted to point out that the adoption of this clause in the form proposed might lead to difficulty.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: For the present I will propose the Amendment as it is with the understanding that if it is found convenient in the Grand Committee to alter it, I, at any rate, shall make no objection.
      Amendment moved,
      In line 29, to leave out (" of the banns,") and to leave out from (" church ") to the end of the clause and insert (" where they are to he published, may require a statement in writing signed by the person who applied for the banns of the abodes of each of the parties within the parish, and whether they are both of full age, and if not, whether each one who is not has got the consent of his or her father or guardian; and that the person applying knows of no legal impediment by reason of relationship within the prohibited degrees or any other cause. And after receiving such statement the minister shall allow the publication to proceed unless he ascertains it to be false, and he shall not be bound or authorised to ask any further question of the parties, but may inform them that they are liable to prosecution if they sign such statement falsely.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 7.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: It is necessary to move an Amendment to leave out the word " chapel," here, in consequence of what we did in the interpretation clause. It will read " in any church within the diocese," leaving out the intervening words.
      Amendment moved, in page 3, line 1, to leave in the words " or in any chapel.
      Agreed to.
      Other Amendments made.
      Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 8 agreed to.
      Clause 9.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I desire to add some words to Clause 9, providing that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to detract from or qualify the authority in regard to marriage licences, or to affect the legality of any marriage in conformity therewith. I am advised that it is important to protect the Vicar General and other officials in the exercise of their duties that those words should be inserted.
      Amendment moved,
      In page 3, at the end of the clause, add (" and nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to abridge, detract from, or qualify the authority which the said Master of the Faculties or the said Vicar General now has the exercises in issuing marriage licences, or to affect the legality of any marriage solemnised in conformity therewith.")—(The Bishop of London.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 10 agreed to.
      Clause 11.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I propose to leave out from " post," in line 26, to the second " to," in line 28, and insert words " providing that the notice shall be sent by the person obtaining the licence." I think that burden ought rather to be imposed upon the person who is to be married than upon the surrogate, unless there is sonic occasion for it.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I do not object to that.
      Amendment moved, in page 3, line 26, leave out from (" post ") to the second (" to ") in line 28, and insert (" by the person who obtained the same.")—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: There is a further addition which I propose to make in this clause on page 3, line 28, for the purpose of giving greater security against improper marriages. I suppose the real meaning of all marriage legislation is to facilitate as far as possible the performance of proper marriages, and to render difficult or impossible all illegal marriages. It seems to me that in the absence of anything to prevent it, persons may go to a surrogate and make a declaration and obtain a licence with a very wide range of the sources from which such licences may be obtained, and there are no means whatever except the statement of the persons themselves of ascertaining whether the marriage be a legal and proper marriage or not. One knows very well—I know it painfully well from experience in populous parishes in London for upwards of 20 years, and now in a large diocese for a number of years—that the number of illegal and improper marriages is something enormous, and chiefly because we do not take proper precautions to ascertain the circumstances of the marriage. There is something more, and that is the rash facility with which people take affidavits, and make declarations such as are required before obtaining licences of marriage. It seems to me that to send

      1297
      a notice to a clergyman who is at some distance, in whose church the marriage is to be solemnised, is of comparatively small importance; and I propose that notice should be sent to the incumbent of the parish where the persons applying for the licence have their usual place of abode. There would then, if that were done, be some chance of ascertaining whether the marriage was a legal one or not. Of course the clergyman where the marriage is to be solemnised, ex hypothesi knows nothing about the parties; but the incumbent of the parish where they have resided might know the circumstances; as occurred in one case in a parish of mine where a man wished to marry his grand-niece—and he really did marry her. When I heard of the matter I wrote to tell the surrogate that he must withdraw the licence and get it back. He was able to do so by persuading the old man that it was not a proper marriage, and for a time it was stopped; but after some time had elapsed he was able to get a licence elsewhere. Marriages of an illegal nature are celebrated in hundreds, I might almost say in thousands, in this country, and surely the object of all marriage laws ought to be to prevent persons from contracting illegal and improper marriages. It seems to me not only in this clause, but throughout this Bill, there is very great laxity with regard to obtaining information on those points, and I do not hesitate to say that in some respects this Bill will facilitate improper and illegal marriages unless such precautions as I propose are taken. Care should be taken by somebody to ascertain whether the man is going to contract such a horrible marriage to which I have alluded, or whether mere children are going to marry at the age of 16 or 17. Such cases are of continual occurrence, whereas, if notice of these marriages were sent to the incumbent of the parish where the parties dwell, he might know the circumstances, and perhaps be able to say immediately" This is an improper marriage." Without that I think we shall open the door to an extension of the really painful irregularity, and laxity, now existing.
      Moved—
      In page 3, line 28, after (" granted") to insert (" to the incumbents of the parishes in
      1298
      which the persons applying have had their usual place of abode and also.")—(The Bishop of Lichfield.)
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I quite understand the Amendment, but I do not understand how it is to be enforced. I confess I sympathise with a great deal the right rev. Prelate has said; but consider what his proposal is. Here is a proposal that notice is to be sent to the incumbent of the place where the people reside; no definite time is fixed for it; no penalties are imposed—you dare not put in a penalty; and the whole thing would fall through in a very short time. Why is all that trouble to be given to the incumbents of parishes for no purpose. I cannot think that is a discreet way of legislating.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: In support of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, I am afraid it would overwhelm incumbents, who are often hardly enough worked, to have numberless notices coming by post saying that people who had lived in his parish were going to be married. I think it would be very hard to put upon them the duty of inquiring and replying to the notices, and that it would be a mistake to insist upon the performance of such a duty.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: After what has been said, I will withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
      Clause 14.
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I think after the word " diocese " some words ought to be inserted. It is probably my mistake for not looking to it. It will read that where the marriage is by licence, it shall not be necessary to give proof of abode for 15 days in any parish in the diocese, " or compliance with the directions in Section 11." I think it is necessary to insert these words in order to make the meaning of the clause complete.
      Amendment moved in page 4, line 15, after" diocese,"toinsert "or of compliance

      1299
      with the directions mentioned in Section 11 of this Act." —(The Bishop of London.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 15.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think there is a superfluity of adverbs here. It says, " Any false statement made knowingly, intentionally, and wilfully." It seems to me the words " wilfully and intentionally " are certainly unnecessary. I therefore propose to put it " knowingly " alone.
      Amendment moved in page 4, line 18 and 19, to leave out the words " intentionally and wilfully."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: I would ask my right rev. Brother who is to be the prosecutor in these cases. I presume there would have to be a prosecution.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I did not think it would be reasonable to desire that the Public Prosecutor should take up such a matter as this as a question of duty. I do not think Parliament would agree to it.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Perhaps the Bishops would like to undertake it in addition to their duties under the Clergy Discipline Act.
      THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: This is one more symptom of weakness in the Act. I think all this is in the wrong direction. Too much importance is attached to obtaining information. Everybody knows very well that nobody will come forward to give information in such matters as these merely in the public interest. What is everybody's business is nobody's business.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Another slight Amendment which I propose is with regard to the word " committal." I cannot find the word "committal " used in this sense in the dictionary. We have the commission of offences but the committal of offenders. I therefore propose to insert the word " commission " in its place.
      Amendment moved, in page 4, line 22, to leave out "committal," and insert " commission," agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 16.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: This clause will come out here as the interpretation clause has been put in at the beginning.
      Amendment moved, " To leave out Clause 16."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause 17.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I wish to add to this clause " or to marriages celebrated by special licences granted by the Archbishops." It is necessary to clearly exempt the Archbishops from the operation of this Act.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: Surely that is done already by Clause 9, and by the addition which the right rev. Prelate has already moved. That was done for the express purpose of keeping those powers alive.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: If the noble and learned Lord thinks that is enough I do not want to add it.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: I have no objection to one of them, but the two together seem to be unnecessary.
      THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Here again, although I feel the same reluctance to intervene, I will point out that the first part of Clause 17 was not necessary at all, because an Act of Parliament does not bind the Crown. With reference to the second part also I am not at all certain that it is required.
      THE BISHOP OF LONDON: Perhaps it would be better to strike it out now. We can re-insert it in Committee.
      THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It might be well to leave that proviso in now.
      Amendment moved,
      At the end of the clause to add (" or to marriages celebrated by special licence granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury or his successors referred to in statute 4 George IV., chapter seventy-six.")—(The Bishop of London.)
      Agreed to.
      Clause as amended agreed to.
      Clause 18.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: There is an unnecessary quantity of description in the first line of this clause. It looks as if a new Act were referred to, whereas it is only the Act called " the principal Act" which has already been referred to in

      1301
      the Preamble. Surely it would be better to say " the provisions of the said Act are hereby repealed so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and no further."
      THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But surely this is mere drafting. It can all be dealt with in Standing Committee.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: As the Chairman has pointed out "the said Act" has been struck out in the last clause, and we should only be repeating it. I propose the Amendment now and we can alter it hereafter, if necessary.
      Amendment moved, to insert, " That the provisions of the said Act be repealed."
      Agreed to.
      Other Amendments made.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 19.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: There is something in this clause which I should like to alter. It provides in line 8 that copies of the Act shall be sent " to the officiating ministers of the several ecclesiastical parishes in England." What I suppose it means is to the ministers of every parish in England. I propose, therefore, to make the alteration.
      Amendment moved, to omit the words "the several ecclesiastical parishes," and insert "every parish."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      Agreed to.
      SCHEDULES.
      Amendment moved, in page 6, to leave out Schedules A and B.—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
      THE BISHOP or LONDON: I hope the noble and learned Lord will be willing to leave the Schedules in. I did not myself intend to engage the House in mere drafting. Of course, it can be considered in Standing Committee.
      THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCI(Viscount CRANBROOK): I do not think we need go into this now. It might be left for the Committee, and I would advise the right rev. Prelate to be ready with a form in the Schedule, which can be easily filled up and signed by those who desire to have banns published.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      PREAMBLE.
      LORD GRIMTHORPE: The Preamble is quite contrary to modern usage, and it is quite enough to put in " Whereas it is expedient to amend the Act," and so on, leaving out the other two paragraphs.
      THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Might I suggest that the whole of it might very well be left out. I am told that in well-drawn Bills a Preamble is now omitted. If they say anything, they may do harm, and if they do not say anything, they are of no use. I am informed they are never put in now, as they are never any good.
      On Question, " That this be the Preamble of the Bill," negatived.
      Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed, as amended., (No. 102).

    COLONISATION.

      QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
      THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, r desire to draw your Lordships' attention to a Report of the Committee on Colonisation appointed by the House of Commons which has lately been laid before Parliament, and to ask Her Majesty's Government certain questions which I have .placed upon the Notice Paper. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that within the last ten years public opinion has slowly but, certainly been increasing in regard to the necessity of demanding some assistance from Her Majesty's Government for the purpose of enabling poor but suitable persons to transfer their labour from this country, where in certain cases it is not needed, to other countries where it can be made available for the benefit both of the individuals who emigrate and of the general community. In this country there are certain districts as your Lordships' are aware in which the population may be said to be in a very-congested condition, as for instance some districts in the Highlands of Scotland, certain places in the West of Ireland, and certain portions of our large towns. It has been felt by many that if this congested population could by some means be transferred to those broad and fertile fields which are to be found in Her Majesty's Colonies, fields which are

      1303
      awaiting labour, and which at present are unfruitful owing to the impossibility of getting hands sufficient to cultivate them, a double benefit would be conferred; a benefit would be conferred upon this country by enabling those left behind to earn higher wages, and a benefit would be conferred upon the colonies by enabling them to develop the immense resources which lie at their command, while at the same time a further benefit would be conferred upon the artisans of this country, inasmuch as those who transfer themselves to the distant shores of Canada or Australia having acquired British tastes would certainly buy British products, and would thus create;those markets which it is necessary for this country to possess. I would desire to lay great stress upon the difference between simple emigration and colonisation. The colonies have shown over and over again that they do not desire that large masses of the population of this country should be sent to their shores without any care being taken to see that they do not glut the labour markets of those distant countries; but they have never shown any hostility to colonisation, when colonisation has been explained to them to mean the placing of suitable persons with their families upon those uncultivated lands, and enabling those people by providing them with houses, with seed, with implements, and with sufficient funds to tide over the time until the crops which they have sown shall bring in the reward of their labour. I say that when the colonies have been shown that this can be done, they have always received such propositions with favour. This public feeling gradually increased until it resulted in the formation of a body which was created for the purpose of urging upon Her Majesty's Government the adoption of some such policy as that which I have sketched, and in 1886 Her Majesty's Government took the first step towards assisting colonial emigration by the establishment of an Emigration Office, which since that time, at a small expenditure of £500 a year, has done most valuable service—service which is recorded in the Report to which I desire to draw your Lordships' attention. It is one of the recommendations of the Committee on Colonisation which issued
      1304
      the Report that this 'office should be continued, and that the amount given to it should be increased. In 1887, the year after the formation of this Emigration Office, 32 Peers and 135 Members of the House of Commons formed themselves into a body for the purpose of still further urging Her Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of giving increased aid to colonisation. The result of this was that Her Majesty's Government in the following year undertook to establish a scheme of Crofter Colonisation, and gave £10,000 for that purpose (placing the scheme under the direction of the Scotch Office), on condition that £2,000 were subscribed from other sources. Four Commissioners were appointed by Her Majesty's Government to constitute this Colonisation Board, one representing the Imperial Government, one representing the Canadian Government, one representing the private subscribers, and another representing three of the principal Land Companies in Canada. It was proposed at the time to make advances of £120 to each family. The repayment of that sum was to be made in eight annual instalments at the rate of £20 17s. 8d., and the first repayment was not to be asked for until the fifth year. In the Report to which I am alluding, your Lordships' will see it is stated that this £120 has not been found sufficient, and it is now thought that from £150 to £180 per family is what will be required, the repayment of that sum being secured on the 160 acres of land which the Canadian Government gives free to any person who chooses to settle upon them. Seventy nine families have thus been settled in Manitoba by Her Majesty's Government in 1888 and in 1889. In 1888 the Colony of Killarney was established; and in the year following the colony of Saltcoats, which is about 200 miles further to the West beyond Killarney. The next step, I have to mention, taken by Her Majesty's Government, was to appoint in 1888 the Select Committee, which has drawn up the Report I am now inviting your Lordships' attention to, and whose Chairman was Sir Jas. Fergusson. That Committee consisted of 21 Members. This is the third Session that the Committee have sat. They have examined a large body of witnesses, 54 in number, they have entered into

      1305
      the question with the greatest possible care, they have heard the opinions of persons possessing very different views—those who advocate emigration and those who hold with colonisation; and I am thankful to say as one, who, from the first has advocated colonisation, that the Report of the Committee appointed by Her Majesty's Government was distinctly in favour of State Colonisation. At the conclusion the Report states—
      " The Committee are of opinion that the success of the Canadian experiment is sufficiently established to justify a further despatch of a moderately numerous party."
      With regard to the advantage of colonisation over emigration the Report says—
      "That Colonisation would seem to be the remedy which is most acceptable in the majority of cases, and one which would meet with the least resistance in our Colonies and elsewhere."
      I am not at this late hour going to detain your Lordships at any length, but I simply propose to draw your attention to the three principal recommendations made by this Committee. The first and most important to my mind is the recommendation made by the Committee that Her Majesty's Government should accept a proposal made to them by the Colony of British Columbia which has asked for an advance of £150,000 bearing interest at 2¾ per cent. and guaranteed by that flourishing colony. This offer for some reason or other was not accepted at the time it was made, and I do not understand why Her Majesty's Government failed to accept an offer which to my mind seems a most favourable one considering what are the resources of this flourishing colony, and considering that the colony were going to take the entire responsibility of placing some 1,250 families upon the land. I hope now, the Report being so distinctly in favour of this proposal, that Her Majesty's Government will re-consider the decision which they came to, as far as I understand they did come to a decision formerly, with regard to this matter, and that they will grant the request which has been made to them by that colony. The Report states with regard to that matter—
      " That project"
      that is, the proposal of the Colony of British Columbia—
      " Presents the rare recommendation that it demanded from the public purse or from local funds no assistance beyond the Imperial loan,
      1306
      the repayment of which is guaranteed by a solvent and promising Province, which seems to possess ample resources for the settlement of a large population."
      The Report goes on to say—
      " Your Committee think that in no way could the object recognised as necessary be obtained with less outlay or risk to the National Exchequer, and they can conceive of many considerations in which the colonisation of British Columbia by a maritime population would appear to be desirable in the interests of the British Empire,"
      and they conclude by saying they recommend the offer of British Columbia to the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government and Parliament. Then the next and most important matter, to my mind, is the recommendation of the Committee that Her Majesty's Government should not require County Councils, when they borrow money for colonisation purposes, to obtain a local guarantee. The Committee state, and justly state, that the only local guarantee they could obtain would be the local guarantee of the Poor Law Authorities; and, as Her Majesty's Government are well aware, it is most inadvisable that colonisation should be in any way mixed up with the taint of pauperism. I hope, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will make the necessary alteration in regard to this matter in the Local Government Act of 1888, which granted powers to the County Councils to expend money for colonisation purposes, but required them to have a local guarantee before they advanced such sums. Then the third, and a most important recommendation, is that the crofter emigration experiment should be tried in Canada; and the fourth is that the emigration of children, especially through the industrial schools, should be encouraged. There are several other recommendations, but I will not go into them now. I will conclude by asking Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the advisability of adopting any of the following recommendations contained in the Report of the Colonisation Committee of the House of Commons, and, if so, which of them:—(1) That the Colonisation Board be continued and re-constructed for the purpose of colonisation and emigration; (2) That the congested districts of Scotland, and of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland,

      1307
      form an exceptional case, and require relief by assistance in industries, to colonisation or emigration, and where suitable to migration; (3) That the experiment of colonising the crofter population in Canada should be further tried; (4) That the proposals of the Government of British Columbia (for an advance of £150,000, to bear interest at 2¾ per cent., for the purpose of assisting the colonisation of 1,250 families from this country) should be favourably entertained; (5) That similar proposals from any Colonial Government should be entertained; (6) That the agency of companies for colonisation and emigration should be taken advantage of, both as regards the aforesaid colonisation in Canada and elsewhere; (7) That the Government grant to the Emigrants' Information Office should be increased; (8) That facility and assistance should be given to further the emigration of children; (9) That the Treasury should grant pecuniary aid to industrial and other schools to assist in carrying out the above object.
      THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl has shown what probably your Lordships would not be prepared to dispute—the importance of this subject. I do not think he has quite dwelt sufficiently upon certain difficulties which surround the question, difficulties which must be obvious to anyone who has studied not only the evidence given in the Report of this Select Committee, to which his question refers, but also the Reports and the proceedings of preceding Committees. This Select Committee only reported on the 17th March, and it is obvious, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government have not yet been able to give that full consideration to the question which would enable them to answer conclusively the noble Earl as to whether we are prepared to accept any or all of the recommendations which the Committee have made. It is clear, in the first place, that before Her Majesty's Government can arrive at any decision upon this question, the recommendations of the Committee and their Report must be referred to the several Departments which are directly interested in the question, as, for instance, the Scotch Office, the Irish
      1308
      Office, and the Treasury, who will, after full consideration, present us with their Reports. Now, as regards the, Scotch Department, I may refer to the answer which was given by the Lord Advocate on Monday, April 20th, in the House of Commons in answer to a question whether the Secretary of State had been in communication with the Government of Canada or other Colonial Governments, in order to complete arrangements as to colonisation. The Lord, Advocate answered that—
      " The consideration of all proposals for State-aided emigration from the congested districts of Scotland was postponed by the Government till they bad before them the Report of the Select Committee on Colonisation. That Committee has lately issued its Report, and the Government have now under consideration the recommendation which it contains."
      I believe that further communication and correspondence have taken place with the Scotch Office, and possibly the Marquess of Lothian, if it is desired, will state at what stage the matter has arrived. I may also refer the House to the answer which was given by the right hon. Mr. Smith in the House of Commons, in answer to a question of much the same tenour as the one now put by the noble Earl, but confined to the proposals of the Government, by Mr. Parker Smith. He stated that—
      " The Government have not yet had sufficient time to fully consider the Report of this Committee, but it is obviously too late this year to select families for emigration. It will, however, be necessary for the Government, before the autumn, to go into the question, if emigration is to take place before spring, and I hope it may be in my power before the House finally rises to make some statement of our intentions."
      Therefore, my Lords, the general reply to the noble Earl's question is that Her Majesty's Government have not yet had time to give full consideration to the matter; but he may rest assured that. we recognise the importance of the subject, and that we will as soon as possible arrive at some decision upon it. I may say that, as far as I am aware, Her Majesty's Government concur with the noble Earl upon this point; that they view with greater hope of success any system of colonisation than that of mere emigration; and as regards the crofters, as the noble Earl himself has pointed out, the Government have shown their complete approval of the principle of assisted

      1309
      emigration for congested districts by the action they have taken in two successive years. I have no reason to suppose that the Government have in any way changed their views; but, on the contrary, I should think they would be willing to consider how far that system, which I gather from the noble Earl has worked well, can be extended. With respect, also, to the proposal of British Columbia, the Report of the Select Committee shows that the terms which the Treasury desired were not agreed to—I think it was a question of amount of interest —but it is clear from that Report, and from what has passed, that Her Majesty's Government viewed with favour a proposal of that kind from a province so well able to ensure the performance of their agreement as British Columbia, or from any colony equally able and willing to give such ensurance. I think I may add with reference to the question, why nothing has been done since 1888, when Mr. Begg first communicated with Her Majesty's Government, that, as I think was announced by the right hon. Mr. Goschen in the other House, it was thought better, as a Select Committee had been appointed, that before agreeing to any proposal Her Majesty's Government should wait until the Select Committee had reported. I believe that Mr. Begg is corresponding now with the Scotch Office, and that further proposals have been laid before them, and I can assure the noble Earl we sincerely hope that some satisfactory arrangement may be made not only with British Columbia, but on similar terms with other colonies. Before I sit down I should like to express my hearty concurrence with the noble Earl in his praise of the excellent work that is done by the Emigrants' Information Office, and to say also that I hope we may be able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the very moderate sum which is now given to it, so that we may have branches established in the principal towns in the country. I can assure the noble Earl that most careful consideration will be given to the subject, as we fully recognise its importance.
      THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, when I saw this Notice on your Lordships' Paper, in the name of the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, I thought that probably he would not merely put
      1310
      a formal question as to whether the Government could or would adopt the recommendations of the Committee, but that he would also go somewhat into an examination of the remarkable evidence which is contained in that Report and. summarised in it; and I came down to the House to-night prepared to lay before your Lordships some very interesting and important facts with which I am personally acquainted, in addition to those brought forward before the Committee, and showing the immense importance of the subject, at least as regards particular districts in Scotland. But really, my Lords, I think in the present condition of the House, it would be absurd to go on with a discussion which could only be very languid and perfunctory. Many noble Lords have left the House who would probably be interested in the districts which I have mentioned. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches has not entered upon that part of the subject at all; he has simply dealt with the recommendations of the Committee. I must say that better work has never been done, in my judgment, by any Committee of the House of Commons than that which sat and produced this Report. I think it a matter of extreme importance that the House should be put in possession of the facts, this being a matter which affects many local interests. Many Members of the House, probably, have not read the evidence, which is bulky, and I shall certainly propose, at a later day in the Session, to bring the matter specially before the House, not merely with reference to these recommendations of the Select Committee, but with regard to the facts which they had in evidence before them. I was very glad to see that this subject had been taken up by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, because his name is a sufficient guarantee that it was taken up with no merely political or Party object, and not in reference to fads of any kind, but that it was a matter of pure philanthropy and benevolence on his part, for he is well-known now to be connected with the work of practical philanthropy—more so, perhaps, than any other Member of this House. At the same time, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that propositions with regard to emigration have been more or less connected with

      1311
      political questions at the present time, and, therefore, I think it would be better, in bringing the question before the Government, that we should lay before them our view of the facts with which they have to deal. Some of the facts connected with the question of colonisation, and of emigration of the crofters from the Highlands and Western Islands of Scotland, are very remarkable, more especially in reference to Lewis. I shall not go into them to-night, hut simply give notice that on a later day I shall call the attention of the Government to this subject, and to the Report of the Select Committee.
      THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Duke who has just sat down was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to bring this matter before the House with regard to the reforms in Scotland; but as he has told your Lord-snips, he proposes to defer the question mentioned in his notice to a later period in the Session, I think it is unnecessary for me to enter upon the subject of it. At the same time, I should like to say a few words with reference to the question which ' has been put by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies with regard to emigration, or rather, colonisation. He has drawn your attention to the very able Report of the Committee upon that subject, and it is exceedingly gratifying to me to find, after all the care which the Committee gave to the consideration of the questions with regard to colonisation and emigration, it is distinctly stated in their Report that the success of the experiment in Manitoba had been so so decided as to induce them to recommend that the scheme should be further continued. I cannot go fully into the matter now; perhaps on some future occasion I shall have the opportunity of doing so; but I may mention to your Lordships the great difficulties which I had in carrying out that scheme. The principal difficulty was caused by the fact that Her Majesty's Government were then unable with the information at their disposal to give me the funds necessary for carrying out the scheme at the proper time of the year. With regard to the observations which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has just made, I hope to be able to induce
      1312
      the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put funds at my disposal at such a time of the year as will enable the scheme to be carried out successfully. If the scheme is to be successfully carried out, the funds must be placed at our disposal at a proper period of the year, before the emigrants go out. In order to make the scheme successful, it is absolutely necessary that the ground should be prepared for occupation. One of the principal difficulties experienced was that when the crofters went out, the ground, in consequence of the shortness of the time, could not be prepared. The time for preparing it is in the month of June. The soil being virgin in those places requires to be turned over twice, once in June and once later in the autumn. With the view of turning over the soil and making the necessary preparations, it is absolutely essential we should be in a position to know how maw families are to be emigrated. We cannot spend money in turning over the soil upon these different holdings in Canada without knowing whether they are going to be occupied or not, and, therefore, it is perfectly clear that if necessary preparations are to be made we must know within two months of the time, at the very least, how many families are to be emigrated during the year. If that is not done the experiment must be carried out at greater cost than is necessary and at the risk of the grumbling on the part of the crofter families who are being sent out which we have constantly heard of. There is another reason why I think it is exceedingly desirable that nothing should be done hurriedly, because unless preparations are made in such a way as to enable the emigrants to rely upon themselves during the, winter months it will be necessary to provide for them in the way of clothing and the means of substenance. That strikes away the principal object in sending them out, namely, teaching them reliance upon themselves, and to provide for themselves and their families. For every reason, being exceedingly anxious that these recommendations of the Committee in their Report should be carried out, it being necessary that a further sum should be placed at my disposal for that purpose, and also that the scheme proposed by just made, I hope to be able to induce the Colony of British Columbia should be

      1313
      carried into effect, I am anxious, if the scheme is to be carried out at all, that the money should be placed in our hands at the earliest possible moment.
      THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am very grateful, indeed, to the noble Lord opposite for having promised that Her Majesty's Government will take this subject into serious consideration, and also to the noble Marquess for all he has said. I feel, that if anything is to be done, as the noble Marquess has said, it ought to be done by the Government at once, because between now and June is not a long interval, and there is no time to be lost. Therefore, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this matter into their serious consideration at the earliest possible moment.

      INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, &c. SITES BILL— [H.L.] (No. 94.)
      Amendments reported (according to order).
      LORD NORTON: My Lords, before accepting the Report I merely wish to ask the noble Lord who has charge of this Bill whether he will on the Third Reading introduce a clause to define its object In a Bill dealing with limited and trust property the object should at least be defined. In this Bill, for conveyance of sites for intermediate schools or other schools sanctioned by Act of Parliament, there is no definition of what such schools are meant to be, nor of the body to whom the sites are to be conveyed. In the Welsh Intermediate Schools Act there are definitions of both, but only as respects that particular Act. Elementary Schools are distinctly defined in the Act of 1870, and I can perfectly well remember in the Office that the definition was often found most useful in withstanding constant attempts to set up private and profitable establishments under the name. There are now unlimited schemes for private advantage under the name of public education, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced only yesterday that, besides his late appropriation of Votes for other purposes to technical education, he is about to propose, under the name of free education, that everybody should be taxed for the education of those
      1314
      who want any kind of education at all publicly provided for them. I maintain that it is a most dangerous mode of dealing with this subject to have no definitions making it clear what the objects of the Bill are. This Bill must have some definition of what it means by intermediate schools, or any schools sanctioned by the Act. It might for the first phrase adopt the Welsh definition; for the last, Heaven knows what it means. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill whether he will promise, on the Third Reading, that he will introduce a clause defining the object of his Bill?
      LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble Lord wishes to have a definition of intermediate schools. In the private notice he has given me he says the Act of 1889 contains no definition of an intermediate school, but I would point out to him that the whole Act of 1889 is definition. Among the definitions there are five or six lines of what intermediate education is intended to be for the purpose of the Intermediate Schools Act. The noble Lord says there is no definition in the words " any sanctioned by Act of Parliament and in receipt of aid or monies provided by Act of Parliament," those words were given by the Education Office, and originally stood, "as provided from the Consolidated Fund," but the Chairman of the Standing Committee altered that to "monies provided by Act of Parliament." In deference to, the wishes of the noble Lord, I have prepared an additional clause with that definition, but the noble Lord the Chairman of the Standing Committee says it is unnecessary; and, therefore, I do not propose to move it. If the noble Lord thinks it necessary, he can move it on the Third Reading. The Bill has been considerably altered in Standing Committee, and I wish to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Kensington for the support he gave to the Bill which concerns Wales especially. The noble Lord the Chairman of the Standing Committees has made an improvement in a part of this Bill, which is nothing but a verbatim transcript from the Public Worship and Burial Sites Act, by amending it so that if part of the land is not used that part, but only

      1315
      that part, should revert to the use of the owner. I regret that other Amendments have been made which I think take away a large part of the usefulness of the Bill. In the case of a minor land cannot be given, it must be sold. This alteration is principally due to the wishes of my noble Friend who now represents Mr. Gladstone in this House. But I must say that on this occasion he has not represented Mr. Gladstone properly, because Mr. Gladstone has on all occasions shown a wish to please the Welsh people, and to obtain these schools is an object which they have very much at heart. I have examined into the matter, and have found that there are not many cases of minors in Wales to which this will apply; but there is one place asking for an intermediate school where I believe all the land belongs to one owner, and the provisions of this Bill will prevent him giving the land, or will furnish him with an excuse for not granting it. What I have seen in the 'Standing Committee has I must confess increased my objections to them very much; but I will reserve my remarks in that respect until some occasion when the noble Marquess the Prime Minister is in the House, or until some other noble Lord raises the question.
      THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I only desire to say that I was not the only person who made an objection to this clause of the Bill. I believe the first person who made an objection to it was Lord Herschel], who is not here. Though I quite sympathise with the desire of the Welsh people to obtain these sites for their schools, I do not think it is necessary, in order that their legitimate desires in that direction should be satisfied, that the property of minors should be taken away without proper payment being made for it. It seems to me unreasonable that the property of minors who cannot themselves consent to a gift should be taken away from them by other persons. They can sell the property, and that seems quite sufficient for the purpose of the Bill. As regards the Standing Committees, I think my noble Friend will find there are some noble Lords at all events in this House, at all events who think the Standing Committees are very
      1316
      useful; and I cannot help thinking that the experience we have had this evening in Committee on the Marriage Bill must have caused a great many people to wish that the Bill had gone to a Standing Committee instead of coming before a Committee of the whole House.
      Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

      MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.—(No. 86.)
      House in Committee (according to order): .Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
      TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL—(No. 93.)
      House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
      LONDON (CITY) TRIAL OF CIVIL CAUSES BILL.
      Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 103.)
      PRESUMPTION OF LIFE LIMITATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      Brought from the Commons; read 1a,and to be printed. (No. 104.)

      COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
      Report from, That the Committee have added to the Standing Committee the Lords following:

      M. Bath.

      L. Poltimore.

      M. Ripon.

      L. Leigh.

      E. Winchilsea and

      L. Belper.

      Nottingham.

      L. Sandhurst.

      E. Dundonald.

      L. Harlech.

      E. Yarborough.

      L. Rowton.

      E. Strafford.

      L. de Vesci.

      E. Ravensworth.

      (V. de Vesci.)

      V. Sidmouth.

      L. Northington.

      L. Lovaine.

      (L. Henley.)

      (E. Percy.)

      L. Rothschild.

      L. Carrington.

      L. Sandford.

      Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
      House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.