Sitting of 6 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  CITY OF LONDON ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to, with Amendments.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
  WOODBRIDGE DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LONDON (SOUTHWARK) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LONDON (ST. LUKE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  ASTON MANOR TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways Bill; Airdrie,
  772
  Coatbridge, and District Water Trust Bill: Brighton Corporation Bill; Reading Corporation (Tramways) Bill; and Wolverhampton Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled,, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Bedford Corporation Tramways, Bootle Corporation Tramways, Radcliffe Urban District Council Tramways, St. Helens. Corporation Tramways and Warwick Tramways. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to provide for the conversion of the capital stocks of the Crystal Palace Company into shares; and to empower them to raise additional capital; and for other purposes. Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords].

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills,. and to be printed. [Bill 287.]
  CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the, Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, against; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Pickering (three); Helmsley; Fartown; Kirby Moorside; Sheepbridge; Gilling;. Whitby; Settle; Carlisle; Patrington; Keynsham; London; Birmingham;. Thornton (two); Tarn worth; Atherstone;. Polesworth; Chester; and Forest Hill;, to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Fartown; Pickering (two); Kirby Moorside; Whitby; Sheepbridge; Gilling; Gorbal's Cross; Farsley; Honiton; Keighley; Thornton; Birmingham; Glasgow; Chester (two); and St. Ives (two); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CLERKS).
  Return [presented 3rd July] to be printed. [No. 259.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (LONDON).
  Copy presented, of Orders made by the London County Council dividing the Parliamentary Boroughs of Camberwell (Dulwich Division), Wandsworth, Hackney (North Division), and Finsbury (Central Division), into convenient Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (DUBLIN) (COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland to inquire into the Public Health of the City of Dublin [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland to inquire into the Public Health of the City of Dublin [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th July; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 260.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 12, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Accession of the Republic of Uruguay to the Convention signed at Geneva. 22nd August, 1864, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 3rd May, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TREATY SERIES (No. 13, 1900).
  Copy presented, of International Convention respecting the Liquor Traffic in
  774
  Africa. Signed at Brussels, 8th June, 1899. Ratifications deposited at Brussels. 8th and 19th June, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Caledonian Canal.—Copy of Ninety-fifth Report of the Commissioners [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 261.]

  PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  Address for "Return showing the practice of the late Prison authorities in England and Wales in granting Pensions to Prison Officers under Section 15 of the Prison Act, 1865, in the following, form:—

  Name of Prison.

  Prison authority.

  Particulars.

  —(Mr. John Hatton.)

  SHEBEENS IN TOWNS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "of the number of prosecutions for Shebeening, the number of convictions obtained, the number of Clubs in which intoxicating liquors are sold, and the number of convictions for Shebeening where imprisonment was imposed as a penalty, in each of the cities of Belfast, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, during the period from the 1st day of January, 1898, till the 31st day of May, 1900."—(Mr. Macaleese.)
QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK-JAPANESE HELP IN SUPPRESSING DISTURBANCES.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Japan have received the mandate of all the Powers to undertake the relief, if possible, of the Legations and the suppression of the disturbances in Northern China, and have accepted the proposal.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Government of Japan have received assurances from Her

  775
  Majesty's Government that the prompt despatch by them of a large force to Ta-ku would be welcomed by us; that no objection has been raised by any European Power to this course. Negotiations are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to make a further statement.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Am I right in assuming the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the request to Japan was unanimous on the part of the Powers?
  [No answer was returned.]

  RECENT NEWS.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs any information about China?
  *MR. BRODRICK: NO, Sir. I am afraid we have nothing to add to the news already in the possession of the House.

  PAPERS ON CHINA.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Papers respecting the affairs in China, in continuation of those issued in March, and bringing information up to the date of recent events, will be laid before Parliament; and how soon this will be done.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Papers will be prepared as soon as possible.

  NAVAL OFFICERS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state how many officers borne on the books of Her Majesty's ships on the China station can speak any language other than English; and can he give the number of those on the station who have qualified as interpreters in Russian, French, or German respectively.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Of the officers borne on the ships on the China station there are three qualified as interpreters in French, two in German, and one in Russian. As to how many more officers may possess a knowledge of languages other than their own I cannot say. We
  776
  have no complete Returns on the subject. We know of twelve said to speak French and two German.
  SIR J. COLOMB: To what branch of the Navy does the Russian interpreter belong?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of any further question.

  SUGGESTED NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE IN SOUTH AFRICA IN VIEW OF CHINESE COMPLICATIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the serious complications in China, the Government are prepared to negotiate for a cessation of the war in South Africa, guaranteeing the independence of the South African Republics.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We do not propose to modify our South African policy in consequence of any events outside South Africa.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—STORES BORROWED BY ARMY FROM NAVY.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to lay upon the Table at an early date a Return showing the amounts of the. various classes of warlike stores borrowed by the Army from the Navy for the purposes of the campaign in South Africa.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible to get the information at the present moment.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Can we not have it down to the end of last year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question down I will inquire.

  COURT-MARTIAL ADMINISTRATION.
  The following question appeared on the Paper:—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether two persons, named Vander Valt and Boogsen, were recently tried and

  777
  convicted by a court-martial at Colesberg, in Cape Colony; could he state to the House with what offence or offences they were charged, what were the sentences imposed by the court-martial, and did the Attorney General of the colony report against the justice of the conviction in either or both of these cases; have the sentences been since reduced, and by what authority and on what grounds; and can he say whether military tribunals are still taking cognisance of offences against the criminal law of the colony, notwithstanding that the ordinary courts of the country are and have for some time been open.
  When called upon by the SPEAKER to put the question—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN said: I have received a request from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies that I should address this question to the Under Secretary for War, but, with every possible respect for that hon. Gentleman, I must decline to do so, because I regard the Secretary of State for the Colonies as the proper guardian of the civil rights of Her Majesty's subjects in the Cape Colony. I shall therefore repeat the question, with all respect, on Monday.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY PRISONERS WITH THE BOERS.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has or can procure the names of the men, as well as officers, of the 13th Imperial Yeomanry and other corps who are prisoners of war at Nooitgedacht, and information as to their food, shelter, and clothing, and as to any sick and wounded among them, also whether he has any information as to the effect of the place of their imprisonment and treatment on their health and life.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Consul General Crowe has obtained a partial list of the British prisoners in Boer hands. This was forwarded by telegraph and published to-day. Consul Crowe has been instructed to forward by cable any further names which he may obtain. The War Office has no official information as to the health of the prisoners, but is aware that Consul Crowe has taken active steps to supply them
  778
  with medicines, necessaries, clothing, and money. The latest information which has reached the Government points to a general amelioration of their condition.

  ROODEVAL ENGAGEMENT, 7TH JUNE —CAPTURE OE THE DERBYSHIRE BATTALION.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the account, now in the possession of the War Office, giving the details of the surrender of the 4th Battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment, has been withheld from publication.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by the first Lord of the Treasury to the Leader of the Opposition.†
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then am I to understand that these documents will be furnished in due course? That was the trend of the First Lord's reply.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am, perhaps, venturing too much in speaking only from memory, but I think my right hon. friend said that he would confer with the Secretary of State as to the publication of the despatches.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask the First Lord whether he did not say yesterday that these documents would be published in due course?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is an irregular question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I knew it was.

  ROODEVAL ENGAGEMENT—RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DISASTER.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it was the absolute duty of Lord Methuen to guard the railway between Roodeval and America, which was destroyed by the Boer forces in the raid upon the line of communications in which the 4th Battalion of the Sherwood Foresters were surrounded and taken prisoners on the 7th June; whether Lord Methuen with a reconstituted division was upwards of twenty miles from the scene of the raid on the railway, and had
  † See page 622 of this volume.

  779
  temporarily abandoned the task of guarding the railway in order to take supplies to General Colville at Heilbron; and whether it is proposed to hold an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the officer or officers to whom the responsibity of the rout and surrender of a whole battalion at Roodoval appertains.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to answer the first two questions. With regard to the third, it is for Lord Roberts to decide whether an investigation is necessary.

  GENERAL COLVILLE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether General Colville has been removed from his command in South Africa; and, if so, upon what grounds.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No information has boon received on this subject in the War Office.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Secretary of State make inquiries, or will it be left to the discretion of Lord Roberts?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member must have gathered that it is not the policy of the Government to ask Lord Roberts for an explanation of every piece of telegraphic news the meaning of which is not immediately apparent.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will put a question to the First Lord on Monday.

  ORANGE RIVER COLONY AND PENNY POSTAGE.
  *MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether instructions will be given without delay to reduce the postage of letters to all persons in the Orange River Colony to one penny per half-ounce.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General is awaiting the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the subject.

  PATRIOTIC FUND—WIDOWS' ALLOWANCES.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is' aware that since the
  780
  Report of the Committee on the various War Funds was issued the Patriotic-Commissioners have reduced the allowance of 5s. per week given by them to-widows previous to such Report to the sum of 3s. per week; and whether, as the Committee contemplated, as is shown in the Report, that larger rather than smaller sums should be granted by the Patriotic Commissioners, the Government are prepared to advise the abolition of the said Commissioners, and whether the Government are willing to provide adequately for the wives and dependents of those who lose their lives in the service of their country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am in receipt of a communication, from the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, which deals with the third part of my hon. friend's question. The Commissioners say that the widows placed on the Transvaal War Fund have not had any different treatment meted out to them since the issue of the Report of the War Funds Commission. A small proportion of the total number of widows on the fund have had their allowances altered both before and since the issue of the Report by reason of their having been granted permanent annuities of a substantial character from overlapping local funds; and it would be unfair to other widows if such further allowances were not taken into account by the Commissioners. But the Commissioners have undertaken to frame a scheme of allowances for all widows when the war is over, and when the number of applications has been definitely ascertained. As to the second paragraph of my hon. friend's question, he is probably aware that the Government have pledged themselves to deal with the question of making provision for all widows and orphans.
  MR. GALLOWAY: May I ask: whether that is the answer of the Patriotic Commissioners or of the right hon. Gentleman's own? Because, in the former case, I take leave to question its accuracy.
  [No answer was given.]

  UNDER-AGE RECRUITS—CASE OF PATRICK WALSH.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to. ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a boy

  781
  named Patrick Walsh, whose regimental number is 6,106, enlisted in the 1st Battalion Royal Minister Fusiliers in October, 1898, and that prior to his last enlistment he joined the Army, but was discharged in March, 1898, being then under fourteen years of ago; whether he can state if Patrick Walsh is now serving as a soldier in South Africa; and whether, seeing that he is now only sixteen years old, his immediate discharge from the Army will be granted in accordance with the request of his parents.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. When they were made known to the War Office last November a letter was sent to the General Officer commanding the Cork district, in which his attention was called to the case, and explanations from the officers concerned were demanded. These explanations were received. The Approving Officer expresses unqualified regret, and states in extenuation that Private Walsh when enlisted presented the appearance of maturity. He further states that he has often had occasion to question the correctness of birth certificates, and has even been in correspondence with the Registrar General in Ireland on the subject. The medical officer is so strongly of the same opinion with regard to the maturity of the youth the examined that he believes personation has taken place. The recruiting officer admits the possibility of error, and points out that in 1899 500 recruits were accepted and 300 rejected in his district, and that Walsh's name is a very common one in Listowel, where he was enlisted. It is an unsatisfactory case The boy seems to have been determined to enter the Army, and as he is now in South Africa it is impossible to discharge him before the end of the war; but his father has been been directed to apply again as soon as the war is over.
  MR. FLAVIN: Has a boy fourteen years of age arrived at maturity for war purposes? Why was information refused to his parents whop they applied at the War Office?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The question raises the points with which I have attempted to deal. The boy's height, weight, and chest measurement were all abnormal, so that it was easy to mistake his age.
  MR. FLAVIN: He must be valuable for the front, then.

  LONDON TELEGRAPHIST VOLUNTEERS—CAMP LEAVE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that members of the London Scottish Volunteers who are employed at the Central Telegraph Office, London, have been refused leave of absence to attend camps of military instruction; and will he have inquiry made into the matter with a view to a short term of leave being granted.
  MR. HANBURY: Every effort is made to enable officers of the Post Office who are Volunteers to attend camps of instruction this year; but owing to the large number of officers who have been withdrawn for service in South Africa, it is not possible, with due regard to the exigencies of the service, to allow more than a limited number to go.

  INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES CONFERENCE AT STOCKHOLM.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British delegate to the International Fisheries Conference, held at Stockholm last year, has made any report of those proceedings to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether it will be issued as a Parliamentary Paper.
  *MR. BRODRICK: A Report has been received and the question of its publication will be considered when the correspondence between the British and Swedish Governments has been concluded.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Swedish Government, some mouths ago, communicated to Her Majesty's Government, the other North Sea Powers, and Russia, that it accepted the programme of the International Fisheries Conference held at Stockholm last year, and is resolved, in case of agreement on the part of the other Governments interested, to ask from the Riksdag the funds necessary to carry it out; whether favourable replies have been received by the Swedish Government from the Governments of Norway and Germany concerning the co-operation

  783
  proposed by the Stockholm Conference; and whether any, and, if so, what, reply has been made by Her Majesty's Government to this communication from the Swedish Government.
  *MR. BRODRICK: As I stated in answer to a question on 1st May, communications are at present passing between the British and Swedish Governments with regard to the participation of Great Britain in certain investigations concerning the fishing industry which were recommended by the Conference. These communications are not yet completed, and I am therefore not able to make a more definite statement.

  BRITISH SEA FISHERIES— ANADROMOUS FISHES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries have ascertained and have stated, at page 105 of their Report for 1897, that the diminution in the number of sea fish, such as cod and haddock, on the coasts of the United States is accompanied by a depletion of anadromous fishes, such as the salmon, which leave the sea at certain seasons for the rivers: and that it appears that any measures tending to restore the anadromous fishes to their former abundance will also improve the coast fisheries; and will he consider whether any steps can be taken to improve the sea fisheries of the English, Scotch, and Irish coasts by measures tending to restore the anadroms which frequent the rivers of Ireland.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): No, Sir, I am not. The passage which my hon. friend has quoted with some considerable approach to accuracy is an expression of opinion by Mr. Charles H. Stevenson, contained in an appendix to the Report for 1898 of the Commissioner for Fish and Fisheries. The question whether any measures can be taken to add to the number of anadroms in the rivers of Ireland is being at present considered by a Viceregal Commission. It is impossible for me to say whether any steps can be taken to improve the sea fisheries of the English, Scotch and Irish coasts by such measures until I know what such measures are.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman wait for the Report of that Commission before proceeding with the Undersized Fish Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; that Bill does not deal with anadroms.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say the direct connection between the scarcity of one and. the scarcity of the other?
  MR. RITCHIEdid not reply.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, for the information of Irish Members interested in fisheries, what an anadromous fish is?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is a fish which lives sometimes in the sea and sometimes in the river.

  LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNICATION—WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
  SIR R. PENROSE-FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will be good enough to state whether communication between the East Goodwin light-vessel and the main land by wireless telegraphy, for life-saving purposes, is in working order; and, if not, whether he will explain the grounds of delay; and whether he is aware that the system in question is in constant use for life-saving and commercial purposes between the Borkum light-vessel, twenty miles from the receiving station on the main land.
  MR. RITCHIE: The wireless telegraphy communication between the East Goodwin light-vessel and the mainland was established for experimental purposes, only, and has now been discontinued. I am not aware of the exact nature of the system in use on the Borkum light-vessel. The question of using a system of wireless telegraphy for purposes of communication with lighthouses and light-vessels is before an Inter-Departmental Committee, who have very difficult questions, of patent rights to consider.

  RAILWAYS—COMMUNICATION WITH GUARD ON PASSENGER TRAINS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to. the fact that the principal railway companies decided some time since to adopt

  785
  the brake system of communication between railway passengers and the guard, will he state the names of the companies now using this system.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am not in the possession of exhaustive information on the subject, but I will take steps to obtain it, and communicate with the hon. Member.

  POSTAL EMPLOYEES AND CITIZENS' RIGHTS
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there is any statute or regulation debarring Post Office servants, who are also officers of their trade unions, from exercising the right of approach to candidates for Parliament possessed by ordinary citizens and officials of other organisations.
  Mr. HANBURY: No distinction, of course, is drawn in this respect between a Post Office servant who is an officer of a trade union and one who is not. All Post Office servants, like all other members of the Civil Service of the Crown, are necessarily required to serve with equal fidelity under whatever political party may for the time be in power, and are therefore expected not to take any public part in supporting or opposing any particular candidate or party. This is specially necessary in the case of those who are brought into daily contact, in the discharge of their official duties, with all sections of the public, as most of the Post Office servants are. No statute and no regulation exists debarring any Post Office servant from approaching candidates for Parliament; but it is, of course, within the discretion of the Postmaster General, as it would be in the discretion of the head of any other Department of the State, to frame such a regulation if he considers it necessary in the public interest.
  MR. STEADMAN: Does the right Hon. Gentleman's answer refer to officials as well as members of trades unions?
  MR. HANBURY: It applies to all in the Postal service, whether they belong to trades unions or not.

  DELAY OF AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the delay in the transit of the Australian mails per Orient Steam Navigation Company's steamers from Naples to London; and whether the mails by the Orient steamer which arrived at Naples on Friday last have yet been delivered in London; and, if so, will he state when, the mails left Naples and when they arrived in London.
  MR. HANBURY: The transit through, Italy and France of the Australian mails landed at Naples is the subject of special attention; and continued effort is made to prevent delay in that service. The last homeward Orient packet arrived at, Naples not on Friday but on Saturday last, and the mails were despatched from Naples shortly before midnight. Through irregularities, however, in the Italian railway service they did not reach London till Tuesday night, and the London correspondence was delivered on Wednesday morning. Representations have been made to the Italian Post Office on the subject.

  ESTATE DUTY IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue instructions, to the sheriff clerks in Scotland to receive the inventories and expede confirmations in favour of the executors of persons entitled to the benefits conferred by Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900, without requiring estate duty to be first paid in all cases where the estate would, otherwise be liable to the fixed duty of thirty shillings or fifty shillings, and thus imposing on the executors the burden of recovering this duty later on.
  THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The procedure suggested would not be possible in cases falling under Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900, as the remission therein provided is conditional upon the discretion of the Treasury acting upon a recommendation of the Secretary of State or of the Admiralty, and it would be obviously impossible for sheriff clerks to know antecedently whether such discretion would be exercised.

  POSTAL FACILITIES IN SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that under Section 4, sub-section (f), of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, the Congested Districts Board is empowered to provide guarantees for telegraph extensions or such other postal facilities (including money order and savings bank business) as may be within the power of the Postmaster General to grant under guarantee; and in view of the fact that in some parts of the congested districts the Postmaster General has not felt himself justified in granting the postal deliveries sought by the inhabitants on the ground that they might result in a loss to the Revenue, will he state whether he would consider the expediency of providing such facilities if the Congested Districts Board undertook to guarantee the Department against loss under the section above referred to.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware of the statutory provisions referred to. If the Congested Districts Board see fit to make any proposal in the sense indicated by the hon. Member it will receive the Postmaster General's careful consideration.

  HIGHLAND LINE FISHING INDUSTRY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the Lewis and Harris Association, and from nine other Highland associations, urging that the line fishing industry in Highland and Hebridean waters is imperfectly protected from the depredations of illegal trawlers, and, in view of the fact that the associations suggest that one or two swift boats, capable of putting to sea in any ordinary weather, should be placed on police duty round the shores of the Hebrides and adjacent mainland, will he state whether the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of acting on the suggestion.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The memorial was received two days ago, and is udder consideration, and a reply will be sent in due course.

  STORNOWAY COMMISSIONERS' EDUCATION MEMORIAL.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the Stornoway Burgh Commissioners pointing out that under the Education (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament moneys which are now applied in relief of the rates will be used for the purpose of secondary education; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in regard to the Commissioners' suggestion that the Congested Districts Board should be empowered to apply a portion of the moneys at its disposal to the purposes of secondary education, so that congested areas, such as the parish of Stornoway and Island of Lewis, where the rates are higher than in other districts in Scotland, may be relieved of the increased burdens imposed by the Bill.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland has received the memorial containing the suggestion for an Amendment to the Education Bill referred to by the hon. Member. It appears, however, to his Lordship that, apart from the merits of the proposal, it is not one which could readily be inserted in the Education Bill, but would require separate legislation, which he is not at this period of the session prepared to initiate.

  POTATO-GROWING IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that experiments made by Mr. O'Sullivan, of Athea, county Limerick, show that the yield of a potato crop may be increased to the extent of 80 per cent.; and will he have some inquiries made into the matter with a view to similar experiments by the Congested Districts Board for Scotland.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: On the information supplied there does not seem sufficient evidence in favour of the proposal to come under any obligation regarding it.
  MR. AUSTIN: Seeing that the Irish Agricultural Department are inquiring, why should not the Scottish Board do the same?
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain from the Irish. Department any information it may have obtained?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have said there does not seem sufficient evidence to justify one coming under any Obligation regarding it.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY CRUISER,
  MR. WEIR: I bog to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what progress is being made with the Fishery Board's new cruiser, and when she will be ready for service.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Hoard that satisfactory progress has been made with the new cruiser, and it is fully anticipated that she will be completed within the period mentioned in the contract—namely, the 20th December next.

  DUBLIN SORTING OFFICE DUTIES.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the triple duty has been reintroduced in the Dublin sorting office, under a system by which officers perform three attendances, amounting in the aggregate to eight and a half or nine hours, the excess over eight ours being paid for as overtime; and whether an arrangement could be made to confine the number of attendances to two per day, in accordance with recent decisions, and in the event of a third attendance being necessary, the same to be paid for as overtime.
  MR. HANBURY: The triple duty has not been reintroduced into the Dublin sorting office, but a few of the sorting clerks are occasionally required to attend three times a day in cases of exceptional pressure, and they are then paid at the usual rates for extra duty for all attendance in excess of eight hours, in accordance with the regulations. No departure from this rule would he warranted.

  COOTEHILL (CAVAN) POST OFFICE.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state why the use of the old post office in Cootehill, county Cavan, has been discontinued; whether he is aware that the old office was confined to postal work, whilst the new office is part of an apothecary's shop; and can he say at what cost the fixtures of the office were removed, and by whom the cost will be borne.
  MR. HANBURY: The use of the premises in which the post office business was formerly carried on at Cootehill has been discontinued because a new sub-postmaster has been appointed who docs not reside on those premises. The former sub-postmistress carried on no other business than that of the post office, whilst the new sub-postmaster is a chemist —but provides proper accommodation for the post office work. The question whether the fixtures formerly in use should be taken over by the new sub-postmaster is entirely a matter for arrangement between the former and present holder of the appointment.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: But why is the new postmaster to be allowed to carry on his business, whereas his predecessor had to give hers up and devote her whole time to the work of the post office?
  MR. HANBURY: I am told that that is not the case, and that the late sub-postmistress had no business at all.

  ROCKCORRY LICENSING SESSIONS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there was due compliance with the rule which requires publication of intention and notice to the police in the matter of a new licence or transfer of licence, in the case wherein Mr. Leslie, agent of the Dartrey estate, recently obtained a transfer at Rockcorry petty sessions; is he aware that the original applicant for this transfer was a person named Clarke, and that Mr. Leslie left the bench and had Clarke's name removed from the application and his own substituted; can he say whether Clarke or Mr. Leslie is the tenant of the premises to which the licence is attached; and, if Mr. Leslie, does that gentleman, in compliance with the requirements of the law, sleep on the premises; if Clarke, how can that person trade and receive spirits under permit in his own name while the licence is in the name of Leslie; can he explain why one of the magistrates who granted the permit was drawn from the Castleblayney petty sessions district, and had he power to act; and will any action be taken in this case.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): There was no obligation to give

  791
  the police the notice referred to in the first paragraph, and the notice was not given. I have no information as to the second and third paragraphs. The magistrate referred to in the fourth paragraph is presumably Mr. McCabe. He is a justice for the county Monaghan. As I have already stated, the Executive do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  BURIAL GROUNDS ON ARRAN ISLANDS.
  MR. SHEEHYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the burial grounds in the Arran Islands, Galway; is he aware that the caretaker on one of the burial grounds instead of protecting it actually lets the grass for grazing purposes, and allows the wire fences put up at considerable expense by the local authority to be destroyed; can he state whether there is a caretaker for the second burial ground; whether it is the duty of the Local Government Board Inspector to visit these burial grounds from time to time and see that the public health is not endangered by their unsanitary condition; and how often the inspector has visited these islands during the last twelve months.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Representations have been made to the Local Government Board by the Rev. Mr. Farragher, P.P., respecting the condition of these burial grounds, and the Board are in communication with the Galway Rural District Council on the subject. The matters to which the rev. gentleman has drawn attention relate rather to defects in connection with the caretaking, such as the failure to paint the gates and to prevent injury to the wire fences, etc., and it has not been alleged that any danger to the public health is involved such as is suggested in the question. The matter is entirely one for the local authority to deal with, and the Board's inspectors do not visit local graveyards unless their attention is specially directed to their condition. I am unable to say how often the inspector visited the islands during the past year at such short notice.

  LORD EMLY'S LIMERICK SPEECH.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Torquay Division
  792
  of Devonshire, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a speech made by Lord Emly at Limerick on the 29th ult., which, if correctly reported, would constitute an incitement to commit a broach of the peace; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to a newspaper report of the speech in question, which, as reported, is of the character mentioned. The meeting at which the speech was delivered was, however, held indoors, and there is no evidence forthcoming of the. language used on the occasion.

  ENNISKILLEN CEMETERY.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, prior to the Local Government Board Order of 15th May, 1899, the area of charge for maintenance of Enniskillen cemetery was not the electoral division of Enniskillen, which then comprised the present district electoral divisions of Enniskillen urban and Enniskillen rural, and that by Article 1 of the above Order the area of charge in future for the cemetery is Rural District No. 1, which does not comprise the district electoral division of Enniskillen urban, and. as the Local Government Board have refused to alter that Order, will he take steps to include Enniskillen urban division in the chargeable area, as the cemetery has been since its opening used almost. entirely by inhabitants of the said town, and was provided to meet their requirements, one of the town graveyards having been closed by order of the sanitary authority.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The graveyard is situated in the rural district, and. is vested in the rural district council. The Board have been advised that the expenses incurred by the rural district council, as a burial board, should be charged on and paid out of the poor rates of the rural district. The Local Government Board cannot include the urban district in the area of charge so long as the burial ground remains the property of the rural district council. The rural and urban district councils have been advised by the Board to consider the question of transferring the cemetery to the urban district.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN CARRICK-MACROSS UNION.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the arbitrator, in reference to the scheme of labourers' cottages in Carrickmacross Union, now nearly completed, made the following charges—namely, correspondence with clerk, one hour, 10s. 6d.; travelling, four hours, £2 2s.; rail to Carrickmacross, £1 1s. 4d.; one night from homo, £1 1s.; hearing claims, ten hours, £3 3s.; inspecting sites and back to Belfast, nine hours, £3 3s.; making up valuation and forming award, six hours, £3 3s.; completing award, four hours, £2 2s.; whether he can explain why in one instance that the arbitrator charged 10s. 6d. per hour, and in another 6s. 4d. per hour, whether the arbitrator can charge what he pleases, and if he is a servant of the Government; and whether he can state if the Local Government Board received any of the money in the arbitrator's account charged to the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians, and whether he will inquire into these charges with a view to a refund.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The expenses of the arbitrator are accurately set forth in the first paragraph. The apparent discrepancy referred to in the second paragraph is thus explained: the usual fee is £3 3s. per day of not less than six hours, which is equivalent to 10s. 6d. per hour, whereas the arbitrator charged that fee in respect of one day of ten hours work, which was equivalent to 6s. 4d. per hour. The arbitrator's expenses are paid according to scale, and he cannot charge what he pleases. He is not a paid servant of the Government. The whole of the amount was paid to the arbitrator himself, and no portion was received by the Department. The guardians were invited to submit any objections to the payment of the account. Apparently, however, they considered the charges reasonable, for they at once paid the arbitrator the full amount of his claim. It is not intended to make any further inquiry in the matter.

  CARRICKMACROSS INQUIRY—SHORTHAND WRITER'S FEES.
  MR. DALY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
  794
  land whether he is aware that the shorthand writer charged the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians £25 5s. during the last inquiry in reference to the erection of labourers' cottages in that union; and whether he can state if the sum mentioned was charged by scale, or if he can explain how this account was made up.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The account referred to in the first paragraph was furnished in relation to an inquiry held in April, 1898. The charges made by the shorthand writer were strictly in accordance with scale.

  EDUCATION—NEW SCHEME—POSITION OF INSPECTORS.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as in the new scheme proposed by the National Board of Education in Ireland the six head inspectors are reduced to the same rank as sixteen of the subordinates who have been serving under them, he can state if this reduction also involves a loss in certain emoluments which attached to their office, and whether it is intended also to prevent the head inspectors in future from reaching the higher offices which have hitherto been open to them; and have the head inspectors protested against this change in the conditions upon which they entered the service, is it the intention of the Commission to compel them to accept the change without any compensation, and will the whole scheme of the Commissioners be laid before Parliament before being finally adopted.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The six head inspectors have not been reduced in rank, though their title has been altered and their sphere of duties somewhat changed; but sixteen district inspectors have been promoted to the same rank as the head inspectors. Both the salaries and the possible pensions of the head inspectors have been considerably increased. The old scale of salaries commenced at £500. The maximum was £600. The maximum of the new scale of their salaries is £700, an increase of £100 per annum, or 16·6 per cent. The highest possible pension a. head inspector could obtain under the old scale was £400 per annum. Under the. new scale he can obtain a pension of £466 13s. 4d., an increase of £66 13s. 4d

  795
  per annum, or 16·6 per cent. No change has been made in the rates of travelling expenses or of personal allowance to these officers. It has never been contemplated that these allowances were to be a source of additional emolument to the officers receiving them, but were merely to cover actual expenses out of pocket. The Commissioners have made no new rules in regard to the higher offices in their gift, in the filling of which they have always exercised, and will continue to exercise, their own unfettered discretion. The head inspectors made certain representations to the Commissioners in regard to their change of title from head inspectors to that of senior inspectors, the contemplated changes in the duties to be in future assigned to them, and the possible loss of emoluments from perquisites derived from their allowances. These representations were fully considered. No change whatever has been made in the conditions under which those inspectors entered the service, except that, as already stated, their actual and prospective salaries have been improved. The change in the regulations regarding the inspectorate, which are for the benefit of all the inspectors (including the six officers referred to in the question), and also for the benefit of the great body of the teachers, have been carefully considered in detail by the Irish Government, the Treasury, and the Commissioners, and have been fully approved generally in connection with the entire new scheme.
  MR. CLANCY: When will the new scheme be published?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I cannot say precisely.
  MR. CLANCY: Will it be in the hands of hon. Members before the Vote is taken?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I will endeavour to secure that.
  MR. CLANCY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it absolutely necessary that the Irish Members should be in possession of the scheme before they discuss the Vote?
  [No answer was given.]

  TEACHERS' REMUNERATION— RESULT FEES.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Irish National school teachers will be paid by way of usual result fees such sums of money as will compensate them fully for the educational instruction given by said teachers in their several schools as from the date of their last examinations up to the 31st March, 1900, between which dates they have received no result fees.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Results fees were abolished from the 31st March, 1900. Every teacher will, however, receive an equivalent payment for result fees that would have accrued up to the 31st March last had the results system continued in operation. This has been explained to the teachers and managers by a circular letter from the Education Office.

  ARDSTRAW NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  SERJEANT HEMPHLL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state upon what grounds payment of the salary of the assistant teacher of the National school at Ardstraw, in the county of Tyrone, which accrued between 1st October, 1898, and 1st January, 1899, was withheld, although the required average of sixty pupils was more than maintained during that period, and although payment of such salaries on an average of sixty pupils was sanctioned by the Treasury as from 1st October, 1898.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the salary of the assistant teacher of the National school at Ardstraw for the quarter ended 31st December, 1898, has not been paid because the claim made by the manager was not from 1st October, but from 1st August, 1898, and such claim cannot be allowed. Before the 1st October, 1898, a quarterly average attendance of seventy pupils was required for recognition of an assistant, and this condition was not fulfilled. A claim for salary from 1st October, 1898, if made, will be favourably considered.

  MUNSTER DAIRY SCHOOL AND AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the meeting of the Munster Dairy School and Agricultural Institute at Cork on the 2nd instant; and whether, in view of the general testimony as to the valuable results in respect to the dairying industry brought about by the instruction given in that school and by the employment of itinerant dairy instructors, and of the statement of the President, the Department of Agriculture will undertake to give equal encouragement to the dairying industry as to the creamery system.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): Attention has been drawn to the report of the meeting held on 2nd instant in connection with the Munster Institute. The Department fully intends that in the development of the Institute every feature of its work which has been found of utility to the farming community, such as intinerant dairy instruction, will be continued. The Department will give due attention to all forms of the dairying industry.

  IRISH PRISONS—SICK REGULATIONS.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that, as deposed to by Dr. Moriarty and also by Governor Andrews at the recent inquest on Andrew Cull, at! Cork Prison, the doctor of a prison has the right to report to the Prisons Board that any prisoner suffering from ill-health should be discharged where the doctor believed further imprisonment would endanger the prisoner's life; whether, as also deposed to by the doctor, there were occasions when his recommendations for the discharge of prisoners because of ill-health were ignored by the Dublin Castle authorities; and will he cause inquiries to be made in this matter.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is the duty of the medical officer of a prison, when he considers a prisoner's life to be in danger by further confinement, to at once report his opinion to the Prisons Board. The medical officer of Cork Prison states he
  798
  has recommended the discharge of one or two prisoners, although the Lord Lieutenant did not consider there were sufficient grounds for acting upon the recommendation. As I have already stated, the exercise of the power to discharge a prisoner is vested in the Lord Lieutenant alone, and the question whether a recommendation of the medical officer in this respect should be acted upon is one entirely for his Excellency's decision. I see no reasons for directing any further inquiry in the matter.

  EVICTION ON THE WARDEN ESTATE.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what amount of arrears were due on the farm from which Hussey was evicted on the Warden property; whether the arrears due accrued during the tenancy of Hussey's predecessors; and whether he can state if Hussey, prior to his eviction by Mr. Warden, offered to pay twelve months arrears, and if so, whether this offer of Hussey was accepted by the landlord, and will he cause inquiry to be made in this case.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The arrears due on the holding from which Hussey was evicted amounted to £11 12s. 6d. He had paid no rent, I believe, since he was put into the farm as sub-tenant. I have no information as to the last paragraph.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this man did not offer twelve months arrears of rent?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have no information on that point.
  MR. FLAVIN: I will repeat the question.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is of no use doing that. I have no power in the matter.

  VALENCIA HARBOUR AND CAHER CIVEEN RIVER.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-land whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused to fishermen and injury to their boats for the want of a perch or buoy in the Caherciveen river, and that

  799
  communications have taken place between fishermen in the district and several Government public boards in connection with this matter; and whether, seeing that Kerry County Council unanimously passed a resolution requesting the Government Department to take action in the matter, he will take such steps as may be necessary for the erection of the perch or buoy for the better security of fishermen and their boats. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Kerry County Council unanimously passed a resolution asking that the Government should erect a buoy or perch on certain rocks in Valencia Harbour—namely, to perch a rock known as Lackavallig, and also to place a bell buoy on a sunken rock almost opposite Valencia Island lighthouse, and northwest of Begrish Island; and whether, seeing that the absence of this perch and bell buoy causes danger to life and property in the districts mentioned, he will give a favourable consideration to the request.
  MR. PLUNKETT: The resolutions of the county council, to which reference is made, were considered by the Congested Districts Board at their meeting held in April last, when it was decided that the Board could not undertake either of the works mentioned. The Board have been advised that the works could only be carried out by a local lighthouse authority within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

  ROADS BOAT SLIP, SOUTH KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that inconvenience and hardship is caused to a number of fishermen in the surrounding districts owing to the unfinished state of the Roads boat slip, in South Kerry; and whether, having regard to the fact that a portion of the people have to subsist on the fishing industry, steps will be taken to give the fishermen improved facilities at the Roads boat slip for the safe launching and landing of fishing boats and better security of human life.
  MR. PLUNKETT: The question of effecting improvements in the boat slip at Roads is at present under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board.

  THEFTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN TRANSIT.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland if his attention has been called to the losses suffered by Irish farmers owing to the pilfering and wholesale robbery of their butter and other produce during its transit to customers in England; and whether the Department can devise some means, either by the appointment of an official to supervise all rates and charges or some other way, by which such losses can be prevented.
  MR. PLUNKETT: The attention of the Department has been directed to complaints of the character mentioned in the question. The matter is at present under the consideration of the Department.

  MILITARY LANDS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]
  VOLUNTEERS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill, without amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to extend the operation of The Union of Benefices Act, 1860." Union of Benefices Act (1860) Amendment Bill [Lords].
  Queen Anne's Bounty Board (Joint Committee).—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board, and to report whether economy and efficiency of administration would be promoted by any change in its constitution or by its amalgamation with any other body, do meet in Committee Room 1A on Monday next at half-past Three of the clock.
  So much of the Lords Message (this day) as relates to the time and place of meeting of the Joint Committee on Queen Anne's Bounty Board, considered.
  Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Sir William Walrond.)

SUPPLY [17TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  CLASS II.
  1. Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,095, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund."
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I rise to move a reduction of this Vote in connection with the sum devoted to the Congested Districts Board; and I have put down the notice of reduction in order to indicate that we who represent northern constituencies in Scotland have something like a Scottish grievance in connection with the action of the Congested Districts Board generally. In May last* this Committee sat to consider a proposal to vote a grant in aid to this very Board, and on that occasion I made some comments on the action of that Board which could scarcely be construed as in any degree favourable to it. However, it is right I should point out that there was no Report on the action of the Board in the hands of the members of the Committee at the time the Vote was brought under debate. The Lord Advocate, in his reply, accused me of making irresponsible charges, of speaking in ignorance, and of using wild and rash language. I make no complaint person ally with regard to that. So far as I am concerned, I pay no attention to it at all. But there was much more than a mere personal element in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because, if the
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiii., page 649.
  802
  charges I made were irresponsible, if I spoke in ignorance, and if I used wild and rash language, it is perfectly obvious that the only inference to be drawn is that there was no foundation for those charges, and that they ought never to have been made. Now, this House has, and, indeed, ought to possess, great power over the public purse, and I cannot help thinking it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs when you have a Government coming to the House and asking for money before it has produced any Report on the action of the Board by which that money is to be spent. It is obvious, if the Government will not publish Reports before Votes are taken, that it is impossible for Members who are asked to discuss the Vote to be thoroughly possessed of the facts which are in the possession of the Government. I certainly cannot understand why we should not have had the Report before the grant was asked for, seeing that the Lord Advocate had a copy of it in his hand and treated the Committee for about three-quarters of an hour to a lecture based on the very document which had been withheld from the members of the Committee. He said that the charges I made were irresponsible. By that I understood him to mean that they were of no significance, and were not founded on fact. What were the charges I made? In the first place I said that the money granted to the Congested Districts Board had been granted mainly for two purposes; one for the purchase of land to relieve the congested districts of Scotland, and the other for the promotion of migration. I added that the Government had not expended a single sovereign in the purcase of land for the purpose indicated, and neither had they migrated a single crofter. Were these charges irresponsible? Were they true or not? In February last the Lord Advocate said that £1,451 had been actually expended on migration; yet not a single crofter has been migrated, judging from the Report which has recently been placed in our hands. I see a good deal there about the spraying of potatoes, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of migration, refers to the migration of microbes. I charge this Congested Districts Board, which has been in existence since 1897, and in possession of public funds for the purpose of procuring lands in order to relieve the congested districts, that they

  803
  have not purchased any land, and have not relieved any congestion in the northern districts. The Lord Advocate cited one specific instance with regard to the Strathnaver holdings, but that scheme appears to have been a total failure, for not a single crofter took advantage of it, and it has practically been abandoned. The words of the Report on this point are—
  "From this document [resolutions passed at a meeting at Betty hill] it will be seen that the condition proposed by us which seemed to cause the greatest difficulty in the way of the success of our scheme, was that which had reference to taking the sheep stock at valuation."
  And again—
  "It seemed difficult, therefore, in view of the disappointing response, to proceed further with the scheme as proposed, and it appeared as if the insufficiency of the number of suitable applicants would make it necessary for us to decline to purchase this portion of Syre."
  I should explain that there were only twelve applicants for eleven of the sixteen holdings, and of these several stated that they would not take any portion of the present stock, although it was offered to them at a price to be fixed by agreement instead of by valuation. The Board continue—
  "In these circumstanes the Board regret that they do not feel justified in pro-seeding with the scheme, and cannot accept the offer which you [i.e., the applicant] has made. They may possibly even be obliged to relinquish the option of purchase of the farm in question, and abandon the attempt to make it available for small holdings, a result which the Board would deeply regret."
  I cannot help thinking it was scarcely generous on the part of the Lord Advocate to accuse me of making irresponsible charges, when he at the same moment held in his hand a copy of the Report from which I have just quoted. There has been a meeting of some members of the Congested Districts Board and a number of gentlemen representing the crofters of Sutherland-shire, in which this scheme was carefully gone over, and the very items I have pointed out are amongst those to which strong objection was taken by the crofter representatives. It has been pointed out that three-fourths of the population are not in a position to touch such holdings as were proposed by the Congested Districts Board. It has been shown too— and the Lord Advocate himself should have known it—that to ask the crofters
  804
  to take over sheep at a Highland valuation was a thing which no shrewd man or no man of common sense, who knew anything about the Highland valuation of sheep, would have anything to do with. There was also a proposition that these unfortunate crofters should take advantage of what was described by the Lord Advocate as being a very handsome condition —they were to pay so much in respect of the shootings over the lands. But the land had been cut up into innumerable small holdings, and if the shootings were to be cut up in the same way and given to a large number of small proprietors what value would have attached to them? Could the Lord Advocate have guaranteed that the value of the shootings would have continued for any length of time? A scheme containing such a condition-could not be applicable to small crofters who have the greatest difficulty in the world in keeping body and soul together. It is simply absurd and preposterous. I say, therefore, that the charges I made were not irresponsible but were well founded, as is borne out in this very Report. I may further point out that the Board actually desired to charge those crofters at the rate of 3s. l0½d. per yard for fencing. Anyone must know that that is too. high a figure for such fencing as is put up in these places. I know that when I have had any put up I have had it done at a lower price, and, therefore, when you are dealing with men of small means, or with no moans at all, I think one is. entitled to claim that they should not be subjected to such exceptional charges. Then I come to the Borve holdings, and I. will quote this paragraph from the Report—
  "From Mr. Carmichael's report we learned for the first time that it was considered impracticable to cut the farm up into twenty-four distinct lots, and that it was now proposed to mark off twenty-four small blocks of land beside the houses, amounting in all to little more than eighty acres, and that the remainder of the farm should be held and worked in common."
  The Board finish up on this point by frankly stating that the only lot which was applied for was taken by the Free Church minister. I have no objection to this, but it is surely reducing the efforts; of this Board to an absurdity when you find that the only result of their attempt to reduce the congestion of the crofter districts in the Highlands is an assignment of a holding to a Free Church minister,

  805
  who certainly cannot be considered to be a crofter. Then the Board started apparently to get feus for fishermen. They got a plot of land of about seven acres near Stornoway. What was the result? The Report tells us that—
  "At the expiry of the period fixed in the notice the only applicant was a fisherman from Garrabost, who appeared to be a suitable person for the purpose we had in view, but as he was the only applicant for any one of the twenty-nine feus proposed we had to express to him our regret that it was impossible for us to proceed further with the scheme."
  This, the third scheme of this Board, proved to be an absolute futility. Now I come to the Glendale holdings, with reference to which the Commissioners say—
  "We entertained the application favourably, and were prepared to accede to it. But meantime it transpired that the proprietor had made other arrangements as to the said lands, and the application was withdrawn."
  Then comes the Bay Farm (Skye) scheme, as to which the Commissioners say —
  "This scheme includes the formation of certain roads and the erection of a boundary fence. If carried out there is reason to hope that it may be attended with success."
  There you have from the Report of the Commissioners themselves the whole account of their endeavours to relieve the congested districts in the north of Scotland by the purchase of land, and I say again, as I said in May, that the main purpose for which this House voted a sum of money and entrusted the expenditure of it to the Commission has practically failed. They have done nothing in the direction it was intended they should go We know from the Lord Advocate that last year they spent over £2,000 in administrative expenses, a sum which, I suppose, goes in largo salaries to certain gentlemen or officials connected with the Board. But, so far as the main purposes of the Congested Districts Act are concerned, the work of the Commissioners has been futile, and the charges which I made, and which the Lord Advocate re-presented to be irresponsible, were charges which have unfortunately only too much substance. They have done something, of course. They have devoted some attention to bee-keeping, and we learn from their Report that they started with three hives, swarms, and outfits, which were sent to a certain man in the Highlands. I gather also that they sent 143 sittings of eggs to
  806
  various parts, and they have purchased a certain number of bulls, rams, and stallions in order to improve the breed of stock in the Highlands. I do not deny that all this is very desirable, but it was not the main object for which this money was voted by the House of Commons. Certain work has been done, or is promised to be done, in regard to piers and roads. No doubt that, too, is desirable, especially if the piers are put in places which are suitable; but from my experience in connection with the neighbourhood, while the Orkney Commissioners have erected piers at great expense in places where there is no very considerable traffic, they have absolutely refused to consider the question of erecting a pier at St. Margaret's Hope, where mail steamers call, and where one is very desirable indeed. Bearing in mind all the facts I have stated, I submit that this Committee is entitled to use its discretion as to continuing to vote money for a Board which does not devote it to the real purpose for which it was originally granted, however desirable may be the objects to which it is actually applied. There is another matter with which I must deal before I sit down. In the debate in 1899, the Lord Advocate took credit for a scheme which had been in embryo. It was a scheme of the Secretary for Scotland to devote a considerable sum of money for a specific purpose. That purpose was technical education, and the Lord Advocate, in the course of his speech, said he was glad to think that when hon. Members had in their hands copies of this Report which I now have in my hand they would perceive that the responsibility for the failure of that measure to pass had been put on the right shoulders—namely, the shoulders of myself and the hon. friends who sit beside me. I do not think, if I may be allowed to say so, it is proper to use a Government Report as a means for making an attack on any of the hon. Members of this House, but it is still worse when that attack is made by a member of the Government who has a Report in his hand which is not in the hands of the Members he is attacking. While seeking to say the least offensive thing I can, I must say that I never heard a smaller-minded thing said in this House than was said by the Lord Advocate; when he said he was glad to think that the responsibility for that

  807
  failure would be put on the right shoulders—meaning that this Report would go down to the constituencies, and that the constituencies would see who their friends were, I presume. There was an informal meeting held in the Lord Advocate's room last year, by invitation of the Secretary for Scotland, to consider this very scheme, and I should have thought myself that, being an informal meeting, no one would venture to mention it in this House. But it has been mentioned, and I feel perfectly free to say anything I know on the subject. You see in the Report that the Board endeavour to throw the responsibility for the "blocking" of the Bill on the Members for Northern constituencies.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The hon. Member will pardon me. What I said about the "blocking" of the Bill surely referred to a public matter.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I accept what the Lord Advocate says. At the same time I am sure hon. Members sitting on this side will remember that the matter was specifically referred to, and also the fact that there had been a meeting.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: In my opinion it is very much to be deprecated that you should make allusions to what was done at a private meeting. I certainly should have transgressed had I made allusion to that. Personally I think it is a rule that ought not to be transgressed. There is not a word in my speech about that matter.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: My recollection of the debate does not exactly tally with the statement the Lord Advocate has just made, but I will accept the statement. It is quite possible that my memory may be wrong and his accurate. I shall not make any further reference to what took place at the meeting.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have got Hansard before me.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I shall pass from that at once, but I think I am entitled to say this—and I do not think the Lord Advocate will dispute it for a moment — certainly for one I really approved of the scheme so far as I knew it, but I did not approve of the scheme
  808
  until I had ascertained that there were available funds in the hands of the Districts Board Commissioners—a balance of money which might be applied to some other purpose which the Secretary for Scotland might think desirable and in the interest of the crofters in the Highlands. The Report itself fortunately contains a copy of the Bill which was proposed by the Secretary for Scotland, and which was not passed. You will find that that Bill is in the most general terms possible. There is not a word about technical education in the whole Bill. I think it is simply to the effect that power should be given to the Secretary for Scotland to utilise the money for any purpose which he might think proper. I confess that my hon. friends who took the view they did take, and who refused to allow that Bill to proceed, may very well be justified, because no one could foresee what the purposes were in the mind of the Secretary for Scotland to which he intended to devote this money if the power had been given to him to do so. When you consider the large sums of money which the Commissioners have had in their hands so long, and which have not been applied to the purposes for which they were voted by the House, I confess my hon. colleagues will have an admirable case before the constituencies if it should be sought by the Lord Advocate to use this sentence which occurs in the Blue-book and which is an endeavour, in point of fact, to throw the responsibility on their shoulders for the failure. I do not know whether it is a failure or not, because the scheme never passed into being; and unless it was for technical education it is impossible for me to say what the purpose was. I deprecate the insertion in Reports issued as Government Reports of party attacks, and the more especially is that form of political warfare to be deprecated when those attacks are made by a Member of the House in the honourable position of Lord Advocate, who is himself the only person who has a copy of the Report he is reading in his hand. One might say a great deal more on this subject, but I feel myself that enough has been said. I wish to point out to members of the Committee that, in point of fact, while the administrative expenses have been going on in connection with this Congested Districts Board, there has been no expenditure by the Board upon the purposes

  809
  for which the money was voted by the House of Commons, although now three years or more have elapsed since the money was voted. Having regard to the fact that this Report, as I said before, is a futility as far as any practical performance is concerned, I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E (Congested Districts Board) be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Hedderwick.)
  *MR. WEIRsaid his hon. friend felt very strongly the observations made respecting him and his colleagues on that side of the House in connection with this matter. He was not going to refer to the interview which Members of the House had with the Secretary for Scotland. He considered that interview private, and had kept his mouth closed. The Lord Advocate would not deny what he stated to the House the last time the matter was discussed. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he was one of those who blocked the Bill. That statement was absolutely false and unfounded. The Lord Advocate had no right, in the position he occupied, to make statements which were inaccurate and without any foundation with regard to the attitude and conduct of Members. The Lord Advocate at that time entrenched himself behind a Report of which Members of the House had no knowledge whatever. It had not been issued. He thought that was a most unfair advantage to take of Members. In the Report they found on page 7—
  "It was obviously inexpedient for us to enter upon any enterprise which we were not quite sure we should have the right to carry through in all its developments, and we were advised that the clauses of the Act did not cover certain of the objects which were pressed upon us by those who knew the necessities of the Highlands very thoroughly. Early in 1899 we urged that a short Bill should be prepared giving us power to apply a portion of our funds for purposes other than those set forth in the Act of 1897, when we were satisfied that the expenditure would be for the benefit of the inhabitants of the congested districts. A copy of this Bill will be found in the appendix. It was introduced in the House of Lords by the Secretary for Scotland and passed through the various stages there; but as it was opposed and 'blocked' by some of the Members for the constituencies which would in our opinion have most benefited by its pro-
  810
  visions, it had, in the state of public business, to be withdrawn at the end of July, 1899."
  The constituency he represented was the constituency that would receive the greatest benefit from any such scheme as this, and he was particularly careful to impress this on the Lord Advocate. He was careful to avoid interfering in any way with the progress of the Bill. He was anxious that it should become law, and that there should be in Stornoway, in the island of Lewis, a scheme carried out for the purpose of giving technical instruction. He was particularly careful not to do anything to hinder or hamper the Bill, and yet the Lord Advocate months afterwards got up in his place and made a charge against hon. Members with respect to the withdrawal of the measure. The statement was false and contemptible.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: What I did say—I am reading now from Hansard, which was revised by myself at the time; and as far as my recollection goes I know of no reason to question the accuracy of the report—what I said was—
  "Hon. Members know that the Bill was blocked by hon. Members opposite belonging to those very portions of the country whose constituents would have been benefited, and the responsibility for that failure I am very glad to put upon their shoulders."
  The Member for Wick then said that he had not blocked the Bill, and the Member for Ross-shire said he had not blocked the Bill, and I accepted the disclaimer, but said that the hon. Member had been one of those who prevented it passing.
  *MR. WEIRagain denied that he had done anything to hinder or hamper the progress of the Bill, and it was most ungenerous to allege that Members of the House blocked the measure. Probably it was thought that such a statement might catch votes. If it did catch a stray vote or two it was a most contemptible mode of securing them. With regard to the migration of crofters, he had asked several questions during the session, but had always been told to wait until the Report was published. On the 30th March he asked the Lord Advocate how many crofters had been migrated with the assistance of the Congested Districts Board, and the reply was that none had actually been migrated. And yet that was the very object for which

  811
  the Act of Parliament was passed There was an expenditure during the year of £8,000, of which £2,114 12s. 4d. went in administrative charges. The charges had diminished slightly since, but certainly it was not a satisfactory way to conduct the business to have such excessive charges for administration. If the directors of any commercial enterprise tolerated any such expenses, they would be cleared out very quickly, but because this was a Government Department, they were required to submit to them. The Committee had every right to object to this state of things, and he trusted the Amendment would be pressed to a division, as that was the only way in which a protest could be lodged against the conduct of the Board. There were a few matters in the Report to which he desired to refer. On page 7 there was this paragraph—
  "A shipowner who is impressed with this difficulty offered us the free use of a ship for six months to try an experiment he suggested. This ship had previously been used as a tender to a training ship, and had every requisite on board for the purpose suggested. The proposal was that there should be a vessel with accommodation for about fifty boys, where for three months or the like period each lad should receive rudimentary instruction in sea life and its usages before being drafted into the regular training ship."
  There was no further information, and he should like to know whether that offer had been accepted, and if it had not, whether the Admiralty had been approached with a view to getting a training ship at Stornoway. Highland boys would not go to the lowlands of Scotland to these training ships. Then came the question of holdings, migration, and fishermen's dwellings. Reference had been made to some land in the Island of Lewis, for which it was arranged the tenants should pay £1 5s. per quarter-acre. It was monstrous that they should be expected to pay £5 per acre. Besides, what could be done with quarter-acre plots? If only, instead of coming to Parliament and talking on subjects they knew nothing about, the Lord Advocate, or the Secretary for Scotland, or some other responsible person, would visit these islands and find out how the people lived, they would have more sympathy for Highland crofters than they now evidenced. There were twenty-six of these plots, but he was not surprised to find there was only one applicant. It
  812
  was impossible for people to enter into such arrangements as were imposed; they would only saddle themselves with burdens they could not bear. Statements were often made in the House that the Highlanders had the means but would not pay. That was not true. The Highland crofters were honest and industrious, and they wore willing and anxious to pay 20s. in the £, and not 5s. or 10s., as the House was frequently led to believe. What were the Board going to do in the matter? Were they going to say there was no possible chance of getting any land in the Island of Lewis? Were they going to throw up the sponge and say they had exhausted every means for securing land? When the Bill was passing through the House he had urged there would be great difficulty in securing land, because there was no clause providing for compulsory acquisition. What was the Board going to do about the waste land in the Island of Lewis? Was it impossible to make any better arrangements with the landlord? The Committee were entitled to some information on this subject. Then there was a letter sent from the Landward Committee, Stornoway, as to conditions of feu of fishermen's dwellings. Mr. Macfarlane, clerk of the Stornoway Parish Council, acting on behalf of the people, wrote to the Congested Districts Board asking them for information as follows—
  "'Each house to be used as a dwelling house for one family and for no other purpose.' Please say does this mean that the feuar will be prevented from keeping a lodger or lodgers? 'Keeping a shop or carrying on a trade on the feu.' Does this rule prevent the feuar from selling even bread or groceries in any part of his house? Or if the feuar fisherman should happen to be a tradesman, is he prohibited from working at his trade, should he be unable to follow the fishing V Is the feuar's wife or other female member of the family prohibited from conducting, say, a small dressmaking or millinery business?"
  We would expect the Congested Districts. Board to be able to give a direct and straight answer to such questions; but what was their reply? On the 27th December, 1899, they said—
  "For trading or business purposes the rate of feu duty would be substantially higher."
  The selling of a few sweets or loaves of bread would make it a trading or business place, and the feu duty would be substantially higher. That was a specimen.

  813
  of sympathy with the people! According to paragraph 2—
  "If the house remains essentially a dwelling-house the Board do not think that the feuar's wife would be prohibited from carrying on such an occupation as dressmaking, nor do they think the feuar himself, while pursuing his occupation as a fisherman, would be pie-vented, in his spare time, from engaging in such mechanical or other industry as can be carried on in a dwelling-house."
  Was it likely any crofter would take a few on such a statement as that? The crofter wanted to know absolutely whether or not his wife or daughter would be permitted to carry on a dressmaking business, but the reply of Mr. R. Macgregor, the secretary to the Board, was that the Board "did not think" she would be prohibited from doing so. Then Mr. De Moleyns was sent up for the purpose of explaining to or teaching the people the potato-spraying process. That gentleman issued a report on the 12th August, 1899, as to the experiments, and he did not after-wards go near the places nor send any competent person until 21st October, when, upon arriving at Stornoway and visiting the various places in the island, he found all the potato lifting had been done. Surely instructions should have been issued by the secretary to the Board. This was how the money of the Congested Districts Board was squandered. He wished to know something about the construction of the Carlo way Road. They had carried on the work from two ends, and they had got stuck in a bog. If they drove along that road from Stomoway or Carloway, they would get to that bog, and no further. Was that a satisfactory condition of things I Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that £15,000 was granted by the Conservative Government in 1891 for that road? Was it for the purpose of catching votes in the 1892 election? he did not mind the Government getting votes, but they should not get them under false pretences. It was the duty of the Government engineer to see that proper plans were prepared, not to exceed £15,000, and if the road was likely to take £25,000 or £30,000, they had no business to start it. That was how matters wore managed for Scotland. The receipts of the Congested Districts Board amounted to £78,129 6s. 10d., and they had a balance in hand of £60,134 6s. 8d. There were many other items about which he hoped
  814
  the right hon. Gentleman would furnish them with the fullest information. The balance-sheet showed a balance in hand on the 1st of April, 1899, of £40,804. There was a sum of £15,000 from the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and £20,000 was the annual sum voted by Parliament in aid of the fund. Was that sum of money lying at the Bank of Scotland at interest? The miscellaneous receipts from agriculture were £1,403, and land and migration repayments of loans and interest £29 9s. (5d. As small loans in connection with land and migration the crofters had £1,310, and they had paid back their first instalments, which was very satisfactory indeed, and he hoped they should hear no more about crofters not paying their honest and just debts. On the other side of the account they found the administrative expenses amounting to £1,524.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Captain SINCLAIR, Forfarshire). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
  *MR. WEIR (continuing)said the Re port disclosed a most unsatisfactory method of keeping the accounts. What they wanted, what they were entitled to, and what he should continue to press for was a detailed statement in the Estimates of the amounts expended under the various sub-sections. They were entitled to have the respective amounts expended under those headings. The Congested Districts Board had as secretary a man who was a clerk in the Exchequer Office in Edinburgh, and he received £650 a year for his services as chief clerk in that office. The Secretary for Scotland had appointed him to do the secretarial work of the Congested Districts Board of Scotland, and he took out of the Congested Districts Board's funds £150 a year. The Board also took another £150 a year from the fund for the purpose of paying a man to do the work which this clerk was not able to do in the Exchequer Department. Was that a satisfactory method of conducting business? They took £300 a year for the purpose of paying a secretary, and the same man had to attend to his duties at the Exchequer Office. No wonder he was not acquainted with all the facts. Had it never entered the minds of the members of the Congested Districts Board that it would be

  815
  very much better to give this sum of£300 to one man, who could give his whole time to the work of the Board? There were plenty of competent men to be found in Edinburgh for £300 a year, which was the sum now paid for doing the work badly. He hoped the Board would give this point consideration. He wished also to express his regret at the callous indifference of the Board to carry out the provisions of the Act of Parliament for the purpose of removing crofters from the congested districts. Several years ago the light hon. Gentleman said the scheme was well in hand, but why did the Board not carry it out? Not a single crofter had been migrated. This was certainly not in accordance with the promise of the Secretary for Scotland. He hoped the matter would receive the attention of the Government.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to say two or three words upon this Vote. A few weeks ago, when we had this question before us, the Lord Advocate read an extract from the Report which we have now got in our hands. We are much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity, now that we are in possession of that Report, to discuss the subject with greater knowledge. One cannot help observing that there appears to be a useless expenditure of money under this Vote. It is not very easy to inquire into the origin of this expenditure during the past year, which has been transferred from one account to another without going back to the year 1891. The object of this expenditure was mainly for the construction of piers, roads, and public works in the Highlands. That remained as a Vote upon our Estimates till a couple of years ago. During the time that the Liberal Government was in office they made certain arrangements which they had not time to carry out, and they were naturally pressed as to what they would do in regard to them. They were not able to propose anything directly in the way of carrying out that Report, and as a kind of solatium they brought forward the Congested Districts Board Bill of 1897, which is the Act under which this Board exercises its powers at the present moment. The Board got very wide powers under that Act, although not wide enough for the desires of the present Secretary for Scot-
  816
  land, and they have had a large sum of money voted by Parliament every year since that time. Although in this Estimate we are only voting £20,000, there is an additional sum of £15,000 per annum paid out of the Local Taxation Fund, so that its income out of the public exchequer amounts to no less than £35,000 per annum. My hon. friend has already called attention to the fact that the Report we hold in our hands gives a statement of accounts down to the 31st of March in the present year, and gives us information down to the end of the last financial year. We find that they had in hand a balance of £60,000, while their expenditure during that year amounted to no more than £20,000. I think the year before it was something less than that amount. The Board are at the present moment quite unable to spend anything like the money that is voted to them by Parliament for the purposes for which they were created. As the Committee knows, this sum is not returned in the Exchequer balance, but is kept by the Congested Districts Board and allowed to accumulate in their hands, so that we find that the Secretary for Scotland on the 31st of March last had a balance of £60,000 in his hands, and he asks for £35,000 more this year to spend i under the provisions of this Act of Parliament. Is it worth while that we should go on paying what is really the interest upon a million of money which is substantially in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland alone, to spend practically in almost any way he chooses in certain limited districts and counties in Scotland? I think the policy which permits such an expenditure of public money by the Secretary for Scotland is very questionable indeed, and it becomes still more questionable when we hear of the great want of success, to put it very mildly, of the effort which this Board has made to spend the money for the purposes provided for under the Act of 1897. I am not going into the details of this Report nor into the general purposes for j which the money could be spent. My hon. friend the Member for Wick has alluded to the question of migration, and he has said very truly that in this respect the efforts of the Board to spend money in new settlements have proved practically futile. I think that view is entirely borne out by the Report itself. If we go into the other subjects and con-

  817
  sider the purposes for which this money has been spent we find the same result; in fact, I think it would require a humorist to deal with this Report, and that is not one of the characteristics of Scotch Members, and I am sure it is not one of my characteristics. I must decline even an effort to deal adequately with the transactions of a body supplying bulls and stallions, which are described in almost equally humorous language upon some of the pages of the Report, and they have met with an extraordinary want of success in carrying out their schemes of advancing seed potatoes. I say that it is humorous reading, but it is also a very serious matter, for it is a very great waste of public money to go on year after year voting this sum of £20,000 for purposes for which this Board, with all the desire in the world to spend the money, could not contrive a way of doing so. I should like to say a word as to the constitution of the Board as a spending authority. I say that it is really not a Board at all, for it is really the Secretary for Scotland, and he alone, who has all the power upon this Board. If anyone will take the trouble to look at the Act of Parliament he will see that the Secretary for Scotland makes all the rules, to begin with, to regulate the proceedings and the meetings of the Board. He has passed the Act of Parliament, and he names all the unofficial members on the Board, who are in a minority. he appoints a secretary, and fixes his salary. We have no record of the meetings of this Board, and it seems physically impossible to hold many meetings, because the majority of the members hold official positions in various parts of Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland has distinct control over one branch of the expenditure; he is himself chairman of the Board, and he reports to the Secretary for Scotland, so that he draws up the Report of this Board, presents it to himself, and then to this House. It is clear to anyone who looks into the matter that substantially we are voting every year a sum of £35,000 for the Secretary for Scotland to spend as he likes, and I do not think that is a proper expenditure of public money. I wish to add my word of protest against this expenditure. I do not think that such a remark should have been made in a Report laid before Parliament, particularly in a Report signed by a Member of the other House.
  818
  Here is what appears on page 7 of that, Report. A Bill
  "was introduced in the House of Lords by the Secretary for Scotland to extend the powers of the Congested Districts Board, and passed, through cue various stages there; but as it was opposed and 'blocked' by some of the Members for the constituencies which would, in our opinion, have most benefited by its provisions, it had, in the state of public business,, to be withdrawn at the end of July, 1899."
  I do not think such an observation; should have appeared in any Parliamentary Paper. I do not think that it lies. in the mouth of a Minister of the Crown to complain in a public document of the action of Members of this House in the discharge of their duty to their constituents, in full liberty and on their own responsibility. So far as my recollection goes I do not believe that any effort was made in this House last year to pass the Bill through the House of Commons. It never was put down to public discussion at a time when it could possibly come on. I go further and ask, if this Bill is of such great importance, if it was so absolutely necessary, in the opinion of the Congested Districts Board, that their powers should be enlarged, why was it not introduced this session? We have heard nothing of it since July, 1899, and I believe that unless we had been re reminded of it by the paragraph in the Report of the Congested Districts Board. the existence of the Bill would have passed, entirely out of the memory of the Scottish Members. I am prepared to move the reduction of the Vote by.£10,000, because I believe it is a waste of money. The Congested Districts Board, are not able to spend the whole of it during the currency of the financial year. Moreover, I consider that it is demoralising to the people amongst whom it is spent. Trying to stimulate industries in districts of the country where such industries are totally unsuitable leads to extravagance, and does little indeed to encourage the independence of the people or to develop a better system.
  DR. CLARKsaid they had not the report of the Congested Districts Board in hand when the Scotch Estimates were last before the Committee.. They, however, had now got it, and they knew what that Board had done during the past year. He, for one, was not

  819
  astonished that nothing had been done. He never expected that much would be done, because the Board had no powers under the Act to compel Scotch landlords to assist in giving land on which to settle crofters. Out of £35,000, which was voted by Parliament last year, the Board had only spent £1,500 on the migration of crofters. The emigration to Canada had proved a failure, and therefore it was proposed that that money should be spent in migration; but the Board had spent more in management than in migration. Moreover, in the one case where they had spent money, instead of placing the migrated crofters under the Crofters Act, which they ought to have done, they had planted them as leaseholders who did not enjoy the benefits of the Crofters Act, and thus the crofters had ceased to be crofters. That was a very shameful thing for the Board to do. Two schemes had been brought before the crofters—one in Sutherland-shire and the other near Stornoway. The price asked for the Sutherlandshire land was simply preposterous. Why, land was offered within fifty miles of London at a quarter of the price asked for the poor land in Sutherlandshire. In fact, the crofters would be better off' by coming to Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, because they could get land there at half the price asked in Sutherlandshire. He was astonished at the Congested Districts Board bringing before the crofters of Stornoway a feuing scheme. The maximum size of the holding was a quarter of an acre. Of course, the thing was a farce and a dead failure. He expected that from the very beginning, and therefore was not disappointed. Until the Board got compulsory powers to acquire land no good would be done. He was inclined to vote for this grant of money ceasing altogether, because he did not see why it should be piled up and not spent for any useful purpose. He was not sure that it was not more baneful than stimulating at the present time. If the Board went to work on proper lines, some good might be done in Argyllshire and other parts of the west of Scotland.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member for Wick Burghs seems to complain bitterly of the language I used in a former debate. What I sought to contradict was the statement, which the hon. Member repeated to-day, that the
  820
  scheme of the Congested Districts Board for the Strathnaver holdings was a preposterous one. One of his reasons for saying that the scheme was preposterous was that the sheep were to be taken over at a valuation; but the hon. Member forgot for the moment that although that condition was originally made, it was withdrawn by a qualifying notice issued on 8th January, and the scheme, as it was submitted, did not contain that provision in it. The letters of gentlemen who lived in the neighbourhood —one a clergyman and the other the convener of the county council—characterised the scheme as it then stood as a scheme which was a very fair and generous one. Therefore the hon. Member will find it was a humble protest on my part against applying anything like the epithet "preposterous" to this scheme. Regarding the statements of the hon. Member in which he said the Board were persons who had other things to do and were not in earnest, I do not think the word "irresponsible" was an unparliamentary epithet. The members were, as I pointed out, chosen because they were persons engaged in other avocations, in order to got, so far as we could, those who, in Scotland, could bring the maximum of experience to deal with this difficult subject. I do not consider it was a fail-description of the efforts of these gentlemen who constituted this Board to say they were not in earnest. Another subject of grievance with the hon. Member was that the Report of the Congested Districts Board was in my hands and not in those of the Scotch Members. I explained on a former occasion that I was not responsible for fixing the particular date on which the Vote was to be brought forward. That had been arranged by the Leader of the House, who, as hon. Members know, is always exceedingly anxious to take hon. Members opposite along with him. The usual notice was given that the Scotch Estimates would be taken on that day, and no suggestion was made through the ordinary channels of communication that the Vote should not be taken then. So far I do not see what I could have done otherwise in the matter. Personally I think it is a great deal more fitting and convenient that the Vote should be taken after the Report is out, and certainly if I am spared to be in the same place in the year to come we will not have discussion

  821
  without the Report. But, at any rate, I have shown my view of the matter by putting this Vote down for discussion to-day. I can scarcely be held blameworthy when to a certain extent I quoted from the Report. The hon. Gentleman said that I read from the Report for three quarters of an hour; but, as a matter of fact, I only read two sentences of ten lines long each. It is natural that I should have justified the action of the Board by telling the Committee, as I did, precisely what the Board had been doing. I do not propose to go through, as I did on a former occasion, the detailed history of what the Congested Districts Board have been doing during the last year. I am content to let the Scottish people judge for themselves. On a perusal of the Report of the Board, which speaks for itself, it could not be said that the Board have been doing nothing, and have been a failure, because they have not been to any extent successful in migrating crofters. I am quite aware that this is a question which bulks very largely in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who thought it was the one opportunity for usefulness above all others for the Congested Districts Board. They said that because, as a matter of fact, the Board have not been to any great extent successful in their migration schemes, therefore the Board are at fault. I deprecate that position altogether. So far as the policy of the Board is concerned, they do not propose to migrate crofters in any eleemosynary sense. They do not propose to do more than help those who. are in the position to help themselves. The hon. Member spoke a good deal about the Strathnaver case; but there have been successful operations in other cases, although the holdings have been small, no doubt. But the Strathnaver case cannot even now be said to be a failure, because the whole matter is even now open,. and, as a matter of fact, efforts are being made to induce crofters to settle there. Hon. Members must recollect that for any success in the direction of migration we must necessarily have time. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of the people in the West Highlands, but anybody who knew them must be aware that they would be always glad to accept such benefits as Providence or anyone else may put before them, and that there will always be a strong desire to get a thing for nothing rather than pay anything for it. I have little doubt myself that, until
  822
  it is seen that the settled policy of the Board is not simply to give the land away, but to help those who will help themselves, the people will hang back for better terms. The Board has only been in existence for two years, which is a very short time for experiments of an undoubtedly difficult character to get into such a position as to have a practical chance of success. Although I should be very far from saying that there is anything to entitle one to hold out a sanguine hope of assured success, I think this is a matter in which the House may be fairly asked to exercise to a certain extent the virtue of a little patience. What I do claim for the Congested Districts Board, and what a perusal of the Report will show to any fair-minded person, is that they had really been assiduous in this matter, and have tried then best and are still trying their best. Hon. Members have commented somewhat severely on the statement in the Report as to the proceedings on last year's Bill. I confess I cannot see anything wrong in that statement, or that it bears anything, so far as I understand it, of the nature of what may be called a party character. What was said was that the Bill was opposed and "blocked" by some Members whose constituencies, in the opinion of the Board, would have been most benefited by its provisions. Here is what I myself said when the Scotch Estimates were last before the Committee—
  "With the view to procuring that power"
  —which the Board had not got—
  "my noble friend introduced last year a Bill, which passed all its stages in the House of Lords, which would have allowed a sum of money to be used in this direction. Hon. Member.-! know that that Bill was blocked by hon. Members opposite belonging to those very portions of the country whose constituencies would have been benefited, and the responsibility for that failure I am very glad to put on their shoulders."
  I cannot see that there is anything unparliamentary in that. Of course I was glad to say, in my speech, that I was able to put the saddle on the right horse; but is there any reason why I should not say so? Certainly that class of statement has been made over and over again in Parliament. The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs is very wrong in putting the cap on himself. I never alluded to the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs as obstructing the Bill in any way. On

  823
  the contrary, I think the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs did his best to help the Government to pass the Bill and get it brought forward. The hon. Member for Ross-shire now is in rather a difficult position. The hon. Member now states that he did not block the Bill, and I accepted the statement at once, and willingly withdraw what I formerly said about the hon. Member. I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Ross-shire was one of those who "blocked" it and would not allow the Bill to pass. The Bill, as a matter of fact, was blocked, and on the 24th July there were five notices on the Paper "that it be read a second time this day three months." These five notices were all given by Members on the opposite benches, two of them representing crofter constituencies. I think that is ample justification of my statement that the Bill was absolutely blocked.
  MR. CALDWELL: That is not "blocking."
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It was "blocked" in the sense I used the word "blocking," and in the sense used by every newspaper in the country. If the hon. Member has a peculiar meaning for the word "blocking," he might perhaps explain it to the Committee. "Blocking" means putting down a notice "that the Bill be read a second time this day three months." The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanarkshire, who enjoys a position of great responsibility on the other side of the House, was consulted by me as to whether the Bill would be allowed to pass.
  MR. CALDWELL: I said that it would not be allowed to go through without discussion.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: That is the reason why the Bill was withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that at that period of the session the Bill could not be passed if it was to be opposed. The Bill was introduced on the understanding that it should be passed without discussion, though I do not think that there was any promise given. That really ends what, after all, is not a very important incident. I would not have said so much about it had it not been that it bulked so largely in the
  824
  speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite this-afternoon. I come now to one or two small points of detail which were put by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. He asked, first of all, about the offer of a tender to the training ship mentioned in page 7 of the Report. But that offer could not be accepted, because the Congested Districts Board believed they would not be allowed to spend the money: voted by Parliament in that class of expenditure. That is just one of the points which the Bill introduced last year was wanted to meet. Then the hon. Member referred to the experiments made in potato spraying by Mr. W. T. de Moleyns, of the Irish Congested Districts Board, in Lewis, and complained that that gentleman went back to Lewis a second time. Of course the gentleman who had conducted them wanted naturally to see the result of that series of experiments On arriving at Stornoway, he found that the potatoes were spread about. I think it would be a matter of curiosity to see what the potatoes were like. The hon. Member asks, "Where was the secretary of the Congested District Board?" Does he really expect that the Congested Districts Board are to group en masse to seethe potatoes? What does the hon. Member mean by asking, "Where was. the secretary of the Congested Districts Board?"
  *MR. WEIR: It is the secretary's, business to be in touch with the owners of these potatoes, and to ascertain from them the information that may be required. I think the secretary is not in touch with them. I should not be so insane as to expect all the Commissioners to go up there. I say there is a want of business management.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I think the fact that it is an out-of-the-way district is a sufficient explanation of his not being at that particular place, and really it was only thought of in order to. find out the result of an experiment. The next observation was about roads. I think he overlooked what the Report says on page 77. He will find from that statement that they did see about roads. He spoke also about bees and poultry. There is no more to be said on these matters than is said in the Report, where they, are fully dealt with. It is. not altogether an easy, matter to take up

  825
  these two branches in a district. He ended his remarks with an attack upon the secretary, in which he said that the secretary's work was not properly per-formed. That is not at all the opinion of the Board, and it seems to me a little inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman has stated. At one time he spoke of the great expense of the officials, and in that connection he referred to the fact that the partial time of the secretary is taken instead of his whole time. As a matter of fact, it is impossible that the work could be done more cheaply, and I am informed by the members of the Congested Districts Board that they consider the secretary has done his work exceedingly well. I pass now to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, which really were upon quite a different platform from those of the hon. Member for Ross. His complaint is that there is great use-less expenditure of money under this Vote. Now, I rather think that what he means by that is that there is a useless amount of money voted under this Vote. He does not mean, I think, that too much money is spent. He means really that he does not think the Board are able to spend the money that they get. Of course, a great deal of his speech was taken up with criticisms of the position of the Secretary for Scotland upon this Board. Well, I quite agree that the Secretary for Scotland is entirely responsible for the policy of this Board, but I do not think that the criticism upon that head is really appropriate to the present, or, indeed, for any other occasion, on the Estimates. That was proper criticism to be made at the time the Bill became an Act. ft is all very well to speak in that way now, and that is very often the position of a Government Department, as, for example, the Education Department. The Secretary for Scotland, along, no doubt, with the Duke of Devonshire, is upon that Board, and discusses the policy of the Education Department, and I am not aware that anybody thinks that an undesirable arrangement. I would remind the hon. Member that one of the last legislative achievements of the Government to which he belonged was to do away—and mightily they boasted of it—with the old system of having Boards independent of the control of Parliament. Accordingly, they did away with the Board of Supervision, which had no Parliamentary Minister connected with
  826
  it, and they constituted the Local Government Board, with the Secretary for Scotland as its Parliamentary head. He is the president. It has a different name, but it is the same thing. He has got exactly the same Board. The Local Government Board have to do what the Secretary for Scotland tells them, and the Secretary for Scotland is amenable to the criticism of this House, just in the same way as any other Minister in any other Department. That is all I can say at the moment on that matter, for this is not the time to defend the arrangement, as it is entirely consistent with the Act of Parliament. In dealing with the question of expenditure the hon. Member referred to the change from the old Highlands and Islands Vote to another Vote. I would remind him that, although the Highlands and Islands Vote was an annual. Vote, it owed its origin to a particular province of the Treasury to spend a certain capital sum on the Highlands and Islands, so that realty, I think, there was, so to speak, a fresh departure when this Board was started. I want to deal with the question of how the money is spent. I do not know really whether the hon. Member goes the whole length of the hon. Member for Caithness in saying that there ought not to be money given to the Highlands at all. He must either do that or say, "Yes, money ought to be given to the Highlands, but you are not spending it in the proper way." ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but, as I understood, the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire scarcely associated himself with those remarks. He rather seemed to point out that the money was not only not spent, but not spendable. If that is his view, I do not think it is a view which commends itself to many of the Members who sit around him. I think that ends everything that was said in the debate except what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness. He said he thought this Congested Districts Board had been a failure because it had not compulsory powers in regard to land. I cannot help thinking that the real difficulty has not been the getting of land at all. The Board were quite able to get land, but the real difficulty was the getting of persons, even with all their assistance, who were in a position to give a fair guarantee that they would cultivate that land with a proper prospect of success.

  827
  It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that the price of these holdings in the Lews, on Matheson's estate, is far too great. That price, as it happens, is not fixed by the Congested Districts Board at all. It was fixed by the Court of Session, and the lowest price at which land might be got on that estate.
  DR. CLARK: Pardon me; I was not referring to that matter.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not think I need pursue that point, seeing that he was referring to another case. It does not seem to me that the system broke down because the price was large, The hon. Member said also that the Congested Districts Board ought to have placed the crofters under the Crofters Act. That is an impossibility. You cannot place them, under the Crofters Act. Really we come back to where we started. The Congested Districts Board have certainly done nothing in the direction of conferring eleemosynary benefits on the crofters, and in that way pauperising them; but, on the other hand, if you are prepared to consider the question whether there has been a patient endeavour to do the best for the people, who, after all, in many cases are ignorant, and to promote schemes of utility upon a sound economic basis, then I think that anyone who reads the report with a fair mind will see that the Board have done their best.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In his earlier remarks the right hon. Gentleman took consider-able exception to the adjective "preposterous" which an hon. friend behind me has used. I am rather disposed to take up the discredited word "preposterous," and to say that the conclusion I have come to is that this is not only a preposterous Report, but that the Congested Districts Board itself may be worthy of having that adjective applied to it. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that there was no ground for the criticisms passed on one passage in the Report, where the conduct of Members in the House is animadverted upon, where it is said that a most useful and beneficent Bill promoted by the Congested Districts Board had failed to become law because it was "blocked" by some of the Members for the constituencies which would now have been most benefited by its pro-
  828
  visions. What are we to understand by this word "blocked"? Let us remember that originally, a good many years ago, it had a technical meaning; anyone could block a Bill to prevent it being considered after a certain hour; but that is a thing of the past. What we now mean by blocking a Bill I do not exactly know. There is no technical meaning. In this case what Members undoubtedly did in this House was to put down the usual notice of opposition to the Bill, with a view of obtaining further information and further consideration on the subject, a thing which is done every day. But the question does not turn upon whether that was a right or a wrong thing for hon. Members to do. The point is that a public official in a public document actually alleges that the reason why something has not been done by his Department or Board is, as he thinks, the flagitious conduct of Members of the House of Commons. I think that is indecency. It would have been indecent if the Board had said that they would have introduced the Bill, but Her Majesty's Government did not approve of it, and if they had thus put the blame on the Government; but it is doubly indecent to put it upon Members of Parliament in the discharge of their duty, who are perfectly entitled to put down notice of opposition to any Bill without being held up in this way by a high public official. What was the reason that these notices were put down? Let the Committee observe that this Bill was a very singular Bill. It was drawn in the vaguest possible terms. It was a Bill of only two clauses. It sought for powers for the Congested Districts Board of Scot-land to apply a portion of the fund at their disposal, not exceeding one-fifth thereof, "in further providing for the practical instruction of, or for such other purposes as may appear to be of benefit to, the inhabitants of the said districts." What was felt by a great many members was that this fund was created, and the Board established, mainly for the purpose of improving the position of crofters by extending their holdings, or by migrating them from one place to another. The Board have practically done nothing in that way, but they have nibbled away at little schemes of alleged beneficence, and I dare say they are very philanthropic and nice little schemes in their way. But

  829
  they have been nibbling away at that kind of thing and have left unspent a large portion of the money at their disposal, and then they come to Parliament and say, "Please give us some further little schemes to spend this money on," some further means of evading the main purposes for which Parliament gave the money, and for which they exist. That was the view taken by Members, and they said, "If you want to instruct the unfortunate inhabitants of these districts in some of the things they would be better of being instructed in, get more money from Parliament, but leave to its original destination the money which was given for other purposes." It was for that reason, and because hon. Members wished for more information, that they are gibbeted in an official Report by the Secretary for Scotland. I now come to the question of the Board. I do not know whether the Board is, as a witness said of the Board of Admiralty, useful as a screen, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there was at one time within my Parliamentary experience very considerable jealousy in regard to the system of Boards which then largely governed Scotland. We have been desirous of getting a responsible Minister placed in charge of these public duties. Well, practically I suppose we may take it, after what the Lord Advocate has said, that the Secretary for Scotland is the Congested Districts Board. He told us that the Secretary for Scotland may do whatever he likes in the Local Government Board, and that the Board has no power without his sanction. We may assume that it is the same in regard to the Congested Districts Board. I think that is a satisfactory thing to know, at all events, and as the Lord Advocate is in this House the whipping boy for the Secretary for Scotland, he must expect us to visit on his devoted head the blame we attach to the doings of this wonderful Board. What has this wonderful Board been doing? The fact remains that although they have been in existence for two or three years, they have not migrated a single crofter, and they have done almost nothing in the way of extending holdings. I remember very vividly that some years ago a Committee sat upstairs considering the question of colonisation. We ransacked for places to which crofters could be advantageously
  830
  and profitably sent, and the conclusion we came to was that there were no such places, and that if we were to relieve the congestion in the districts in the north-west of Scotland it must be by migration within their own country to places where they could find a better means of livelihood. It was in accordance with that finding that this. Board was intended, no doubt tentatively at first, to move in that direction. The Lord Advocate says we must do it with patience, but there is a limit even to patience, and I think the principal criticism passed on this Report is that so little, in fact absolutely nothing, has been done for the very purpose for which the Board was called into existence. I must say that I do not know that I have spent a more entertaining ten minutes than those spent in reading the Report when it first came out, and the stories of the tricks the Board have played with seed potatoes and with divers animals in remote islands for breeding purposes. There are stories of potatoes from the bags of which when they were landed in the forlorn islands the labels had unfortunately been either torn away, or perhaps eaten by one of the prize animals carried in the same vessel—at all events, the labels were not forthcoming—with the result that all the potatoes were shovelled out to the inhabitants indiscriminately, and they very wisely refused to pay anything for them. Then we have the touching story of the three bees— [Cries of "Bee-hives"]—or, was it beehives?—it is quite immaterial—that the Board actually, with all this money at their disposal, placed in the careful hands of Mr. M'Intyre. My hon. friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire said our countrymen would not understand the humour and irony of these circumstances, but I do not agree with my hon. friend. I think they do understand irony, and they will see what someone said was—it is a strong word to use—the farce—but it nearly approached to a farce—of the proceedings of this Board. The whole thing was a ridiculus mus. Now that we have the three hives of bees, a few sittings of eggs, and a patient but ineffectual attempt to obtain the migration of crofters, I hope next year's Report will show some better, more active, and hopeful results. I do not think there is likely to be any very large benefit conferred upon that part of Scot-

  831
  land if their efforts are confined to the direction in which they have hitherto been exercised.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire expressed a pious wish that a humorist would appear in the debate, and he has found one on his own front bench. I scarcely think the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will, after all, commend it to the public to which he is really speaking—the public of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has indulged his capacity for humour so far that he has made some charges that are really, I think, somewhat grave when they come to be carefully weighed. He has spoken with disapprobation of the passage in the Report in which the Congested Districts, Board deplore the loss of the Bill of last year. I am not going to treat that matter again, or deal with the ethics of the question whether the statement should have gone into the Report, but I would remind the House that what they were anxious to do —an anxiety which I think ought to have been treated without levity—was to have some form of practical education which would allow these young Highland boys and girls to get fair wages when they go out into the world. That I should have thought a very desirable object, and all the right hon. Gentleman can find to say about it is that the Congested Districts Board, after nibbling away at little schemes, were trying to get further away, and evading the main purpose of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman sticks to that, let him do so. Evading the main purpose of the Bill is a fairly grave charge to make against a Minister of the Crown and the Board, because it simply means,, of course, that their whole object is to defeat the purposes for which Parliament has entrusted them with the money As I said before, the true determination of this matter will depend not upon what the right hon. Gentleman or I say about it. I do not think the patient efforts of this Board, as they are detailed in the Report, will be nullified by witticisms— however congenial to the souls of a dull Committee—about three hives of bees, such as the right hon. Gentleman has given us in his speech.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: No one is likely to retard anything of a
  832
  beneficial character which can be done for the people of the north-west of Scotland, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember the debates which took place on the introduction of the Bill constituting this Board. Nothing is more plain, from the Reports we have had, than that the Board has not succeeded in carrying out in any large degree the policy of land migration, which was held out as the chief work the Board was to do. The Lord Advocate has reminded us that this Board is a continuation of the old policy of having a Vote of money on the Estimates for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. That was followed by the Highlands and Islands Commission. The main recommendation of that Commission was that there should be an attempt made to carry out land migration and the extension of the crofters' holdings in the Highlands, and when the Bill constituting this Board was under consideration, grave complaints were made by Members on this side of the House that the Board would not succeed in carrying out those objects with the powers conferred by the Bill. It was urged that compulsory powers of purchase should be given to the Board, or it would not be able to effect its object. Compulsory powers were not given, and what has been the result? Land, migration has been found to be impossible under present conditions. There is a paragraph in the Report which I hoped the Lord Advocate would explain. He says further powers are required by the Board to carry out the purposes it has in view; but he gives us no details of those further powers. It is perfectly clear that the Board is now going to justify its existence by an entirely different policy from that of land migration or the extension of crofters' holdings. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I confess I look with a considerable amount of favour on the ideas which are enunciated and indicated in the Report, though I think there has been a lamentable failure to carry those ideas into execution. It is all very well to tell us that we should be patient, and that if we object to this we ought to object to any money whatever being given to this purpose. It may be perfectly legitimate to say there should be money given, but surely before the money is voted there should be a policy. Surely Parliament should not have voted for this purpose the interest on more than £1,000,000, unless it had some scheme to

  833
  carry into effect. Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury could throw some light upon this point, because it was in his Election programme that this very item occurred—that we were to have public works on the west coast of Scotland. As far as I know, that promise has been implemented only with one or two insignificant piers and boat-slips, which are described in this Report. However good the object may be, and however beneficent the purpose it is endeavouring to carry out, it is not the original purpose for which the Board was constituted, and it does not strike at the root of the difficulty with which you have to deal in the north-west of Scotland. We have the analogy of Ireland, where a Congested Districts Board is part of the policy of killing Home Rule by kindness. It seems to me that the Irish analogy should be more closely studied. There are conditions in the Highlands which depend upon the land question, and which depend upon something being done to carry out the recommendations of the Commission to which I have alluded. Even in this Report we see that proprietors have refused to give land. There is one point I should like the Lord Advocate to explain. He seemed to indicate in his remarks that it was impossible to place the crofters under the Crofters Act. There is a passage in this Report which seems to indicate that the Board endeavoured to do this in these new holdings. On page 10 there are these words—
  "We propose that the lands to he assigned should be held by them under the Crofters Acts, but the proprietors objected, and ultimately it was arranged that a lease for thirty-one years should be granted to each tenant.
  One rather infers from that that it was impossible to create what are practically new crofters' holdings. I gathered from the Lord Advocate's remarks——
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: What I said was that it was impossible for anyone to give a person the legal status of a crofter as under the Act. Of course it is possible to allow the rent to be fixed by arbitration under the Crofters' Commission.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: All these difficulties would not necessarily have arisen if there had been in the hands of the Board far wider powers, which Members
  834
  on this side of the House sought to confer when the Board was originally constituted. Looking at the proceedings of this Board I entirely agree with my hon. friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire that this is a very extravagant method of proceeding to the end in view. There is a very large sum of money mounting up for the purposes of this Board entirely under the discretion of what is practically the Scotch Office, and it would have been far more sensible if, before the Board was constituted, there had been some effort to indicate the policy the Board was to carry out, and to lay that policy before the country. I am sure if it had been plainly seen by the House how very far short of such a policy the powers of this Board would land them, we should have made a stronger effort to confer adequate powers to deal with the main difficulties of the question in the Highlands of Scotland.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Lord Advocate referred to the remarks in the Report about Members having blocked the Bill of last session. The object of putting the passage in the Report was to create a feeling in the minds of the crofter constituencies against their representatives in Parliament. That is the undoubted object, and what is complained of is that it amounts almost to a breach of the privileges of this House for an outside body of this kind to comment in their official Report upon the actions of Members of Parliament with a view to creating a prejudice against them in their constituencies. Such a breach is all the more unjustifiable from the fact that it is in a document signed by the Secretary for Scotland himself—a member of the other House and a member of the Government—who has no possible excuse for making a charge of that kind against any Member of the House, or attempting in any degree to prejudice a Member of this House in the eyes of his constituents. The Lord Advocate referred to an inquiry he made of me. My answer was this: These purposes may be beneficial in themselves, but what the Scotch Members object to is that they should be provided for out of money intended for the purpose of settling crofters upon their holdings, and that was the reason the notices of opposition to the Bill were put down. We know the Secretary for Scotland is not in sympathy with the policy of migration; the policy

  835
  of the Government is more emigration than migration. But this Government may not always be in power, and if they cannot find a way to apply the money to the purposes to which their own Act of Parliament directed it to be applied, very possibly there may be a future Government in power which will be able to do so. Why did you not extend your objects at first, instead of limiting them as you did? The other purposes are more of an educational kind, and when we come to the Education Votes I will refer the Lord Advocate to a sum of £80,000 that Scotland should have just now under your own Education Acts,
  but of which she is deprived. You will there find ample material if you wish to give money for the purpose of doing these beneficent things for the crofters. All we. say is, the purposes may be eminently useful in themselves, but they are altogether outside the scope of the Act. We wish the Board to carry out their own Act of Parliament, and to devote their attention to that; then after that they may go to other purposes.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 67; Noes, 126. (Division List No. 183.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Roberts, John H.(Denbighsh.)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarsh.)

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Souttar, Robinson

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles A.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Strachey, Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'd)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tennant, Harold John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wallace, Robert

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  MacDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Q.C.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley),

  Colville, John

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, Eugene

  Crombie, John William

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Ewan, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Davies, M. V. (Cardigan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull).

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Dunn, Sir William

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Mr. Hedderwick and Mr. Buchanan.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  NOES.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Curzon, Viscount

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Gunter, Colonel

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Hamilton. Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Heath, James

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Butcher, John George

  Finch, George H.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Kenyon, James

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Knowles, Lees

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durn'g- (Corn.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gartit, William

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

  Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool),

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Peel, Hon. W. R. Wellesley

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G.(Ox'd Univ

  Lowles, John

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Purvis, Robert

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  M'Arthur, Charles(Liverpool)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  M'Killop, James

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomsan

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Monk, Charles James

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wyndham, George

  Mount, William George

  Spencer, Ernest

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

  Stanley, Ed Jas. (Somerset)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Original Question again proposed.
  *MR. WEIRcalled attention to the dual offices hold by the Secretary to the Congested Districts Board. That gentleman was chief clerk in the Exchequer Office in Edinburgh, in which position he received a salary of £650, he received £150 a year for performing the duties of secretary to the Congested Districts Board, and there was a further sum of £150 a year which had to be paid to somebody to do the work which this gentleman was unable to do owing to his dual capacity. The hon. Member suggested that the two sums of £150 should be put together and used as a salary for a person who would give his whole time to the duties of secretary to the Board. This system of dual offices was a disgrace to a public Department, and it was time a protest was made. The Lord Advocate seemed to be under the impression that the Board was worked satisfactorily, but it had been clearly shown in the course of the evening that the secretary did his work in a most unsatisfactory manner. It was not easy to see how it could be otherwise while the secretary filled two or three, or, for aught the Committee knew, half a dozen offices. Members had a right to expect that the secretary should be acquainted with all that was going on in connection with the work of the Board, and when Mr. De Moleyns went up to the Island of Lewis it was the business of the secretary to have informed him what the state of matters was in connection with the potato spraying system there.
  Another matter to which he desired to call attention was in connection with a paragraph under the heading "Harbours." The Report stated that Portness Harbour and Breakwater were completed. The amount paid on the Portness Breakwater to the 31st March was £4,481 16s., and on Portness Harbour, £1,050. But the work was not completed, and a good deal more money would have to be spent before that was the case. The breakwater was most unsatisfactory, and the sand silted up the harbour continually. The harbour was of a most dangerous character, and it was a well-known fact that there was no other district in the whole of the British Isles where there were so many widows and orphans in consequence of the unsatisfactory harbour. Let the Lord Advocate himself go and see the deplorable state of matters. It was impossible either in London or Edinburgh to get a grasp of the state of affairs in that remote spot. People in England have no idea of the conditions of life there. The harbour and breakwater were in a very dangerous condition, and many thousands of pounds would have to be expended before matters were put right. As a protest against the dual offices held by the Secretary to the Congested Districts Board, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £10.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That. Item E be reduced by £10."— (Mr. Weir.).
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 59; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 184.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Caldwell, James

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Billson, Alfred

  Brigg, John

  Carvill, Patrick George H.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Colville, John

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Crombie, John William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's. C.)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Crae, George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Souttar, Robinson

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Ewan, William

  Steadman, William Charles

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Mr. Weir and Mr. Wason.

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Garfit, William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gedge, Sydney

  Mount, William George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.)

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robt Wellesley

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bethell, Commander

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Purvis, Robert

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Butcher, John George

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir E. H.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hanbury, Rt Hon. R. Wm.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Heath, James

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Kenyon, James

  Spencer, Ernest

  Chanington, Spencer

  Knowles, Lees

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Un.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lowles, John

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  M'Killop, James

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Wyndham, George

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Monk, Charles James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,649, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and
  840
  expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
  *MR. BUCHANAN: There have in years past been many discussions upon the policy of the Fishery Board for Scotland. For my part, I am somewhat weary of bringing forward the same grievances for redress, but I would venture on this occasion to

  841
  point out that matters generally affecting fisheries in Scotland are in a somewhat serious position. I have taken the trouble to look at the Returns, not merely for the present year, but for the last five years. The facts are well known to those engaged in fishery matters, but they are not fully appreciated by the general public, nor by many hon. Members of this House. The facts are shortly these. The supply of fish in Scotland is not substantially increasing from year to year, although the cost of fish to the consumer is increasing, notwithstanding the vast improvements in the catching power of the fishermen on the coast of Scotland. So that the problem we have before us is that whilst in the course of the past few years a great deal more capital has been put into the fishing industry, and vessels of larger tonnage and better material and equipments have been employed, and the fishermen have gone further out from the coast in the pursuit of their calling, yet they have not succeeded in increasing the supply of fish or in diminishing the cost of fish to the consumer. I will not trouble the Committee with more than a figure or two, but I will give from the Fishery Board Returns the amount of fish landed in the past three years. I will take a good and a bad year ten years ago and compare it with a good and a bad year within the last three years. The year 1889 was a comparatively small catch, and 5,500,000 were landed. In 1893 the amount was 6,250,000. Last year the total was 5,100,000, and the year before 6,500,000. Taking the average for the past four years, and the average amount landed in the four years ten years ago, you would find the amount almost the same. If you search the figures of the Scotch Fishery Board Reports you will also find that the price of fish during that period has gradually been increasing, and you have evidence over and over again that the fishermen have to go further afield to catch the fish, which they formerly caught near our own coast. When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was introducing the Bill dealing with undersized fish, during the present session, he stated that our fishing-grounds were being ruthlessly destroyed year after year by trawlers. I do not think we ever had a stronger statement of the case from our point of view than was laid down in those words
  842
  during this session by the President of the Board of Trade. It is quite clear that there must be something wrong in such a state of affairs. Our legislative grievance is this. You pass certain Acts of Parliament and you do not put them into force. What I believe is a very real and serious grievance, both legislative and administrative, is the inefficient policing and illegal trawling. The results are of a much more serious character during the present year than we have ever seen before. We of course recognise that with the alteration of the character of this industry there must be a greater concentration year by year in the largest centres of the fishing industry, and that has been going on for some years, and is going on even now. Fishermen have been compelled, and have willingly adopted better combination, and have joined together to build larger vessels and have made use of better implements for catching their fish; but this year we have had the matter very forcibly brought before us by the fact that this migration of fishermen from small and ancient localities into the larger centres has not been simply a migration of families but of whole villages, and in my constituency we have not merely empty fishermen's houses, but one or two villages during the last year have been absolutely deserted by every human being who used to live there. This is a very serious matter, calling for the attention of the Government and the House, and if by any legislation this evil could be diminished very useful work would be done by this House and by the Government. I will not go back at length upon the arguments we have so often urged in former sessions during this Parliament, but one of our grievances is the continued non-effective enforcement of the law with regard to the closing of the Moray Firth. This is an old grievance which has gone on year after year, and the facts are well known to Members of this House, and more particularly to Scottish Members. The Lord Advocate himself took very immediate and effective steps against the British trawlers, but he has taken no effective steps—and the Government of which he is a member have never shown that they are prepared by negotiations with foreign Powers to take any effective steps—to bring this scandal to an end. Here you have in practically British waters, which are closed to British fisher

  843
  men, foreign fishermen going about catching fish and landing them at British ports, while English and Scotch fishermen are not allowed to do so. I say that the Government ought to have made some effort during the time they have been in office to get the Governments of foreign countries bordering on the North Sea to join together to secure by an international agreement an abatement of this serious scandal in the administration of fishery laws. My constituency in East Aberdeenshire has suffered very much in this respect. Aberdeen being the principal trawling port, the trawlers as they go in and out catch all the fish they can by trawling along the coast. The result is that practically all the fishing in inshore waters in Aberdeenshire has been put an end to. It is rather strange that this part of the coast has been less patrolled by the Government cruisers than any other part of the coast. What has been the policy of the Government with regard to the sea police? A couple of years ago they withdrew this item from the Estimates and put it down as a charge on the local taxation account. It was not a fixed sum of money, and in previous years the Imperial Exchequer was drawn upon according to our needs in this respect, and we looked forward to our needs being satisfied. But even with this increase in the cost we have not found that the sea police arrangements are administered better than they were before. Then there is another question which we have constantly brought before the present Government. They have made no effort during the five years they have been in office to render effective the Scotch Sea Fisheries Act of 1895. That was a Bill passed by the late Liberal Government, and it empowered the Fishery Board of Scotland to extend the territorial limits for fishery purposes in certain parts of Scotland. When that Bill was passing through the House of Lords, Lord Salisbury, by an Amendment drafted by his own hand, inserted into that clause words providing that it should not come into operation except by international agreement with the Powers bordering on the North Sea. Within a few weeks after this Amendment was inserted Lord Salisbury came into office as Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and he has made no substantial effort from that day to this to render effectual this clause in the Scotch Fisheries Act. I
  844
  think we have, therefore, a grievance against the Government for having allowed five years to elapse without anything effectual being done in the matter. We know very well that the years of this Parliament are running out, and it is hardly likely that any effective legislation can be done by this Parliament during this session or the next session, which is the last. I think the fishermen and the fishing industry of this country are suffering under substantial grievances; and they are not confined to one class of fishermen alone, because the diminution in the catch and the increase in the price of fish is not confined to a certain class of fish, but we have the same irregularity in the returns of fish from year to year prevailing in the herring fishing industry, notwithstanding all the money that has been spent from year to year in investigating the habits of fish and! scientific investigations. We still know very little in regard to the migration of fish and why they appear on one part of the coast in one year and disappear the next. I only allude to that question in passing, because the herring industry is the most important of all the fishing industries in Scotland, and I wish to show that it has suffered also. What I urge upon, the Lord Advocate is that he should render effectual the laws now in operation. I urge this upon him very strongly on behalf, not only of the line fishermen, but also the trawlers and the herring fishermen, who also have their grievances, and I think some serious and substantial efforts should be made to get the various Powers in the North of Europe who are vitally interested like ourselves in the sea fisheries of the North Sea to come together, in order to see whether they cannot come to some substantial agreement as to the conditions under which fishing rights shall be exercised in particular areas. I do not believe for a moment that it would be difficult to get the various Powers to come to a decision in the matter if it was taken seriously in hand by a powerful Government like the British Government. We have been put off for the past few years by the Conference at Stockholm, which was got up by the King of Sweden for scientific purposes, and those who organised that Conference never intended that it should have any direct legislative effect, or that it should lead to legislative action. What we want is something very different. We

  845
  want the question taken up as a matter of urgency in the interests of the fishing communities in England and Scotland, and in the interests of all the nations bordering on the North Sea. I believe there is still time to do this, and I would urge upon the Government, whilst Lord Salisbury occupies the influential position in the diplomatic world in Europe which he does, that they should organise a movement for bringing together the various Powers interested in order to deal with these questions, and to come to an agreement by which each nation will respect the laws made, and under which the law will be carried out effectually by this and other countries. I beg to move that this Vote be reduced by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,549, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I hope that hon. Members from Scotland will not take it amiss if I join in this discussion, for I should like to put one or two questions to the Lord Advocate. The question of steam trawling which the hon. Member has raised is one which interests us very much in Ireland, and perhaps I may be able to glean some information which may be useful to my constituency in the matter. We have been trying for a long time to get Irish waters properly policed, and to have the ravages of the steam trawlers put an end to, and although we have not been able to get cruisers of our own, we have hopes that something will be done for us in the near future. I am anxious to know how many of these cruisers are at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and also what assistance is given to the Scotch Fisheries Board by the Admiralty. In Ireland we have repeatedly asked the Admiralty to assist us in this matter, but the Admiralty have not done anything. Then I should like to ask for information with reference to the special brand which I believe exists for Scotch herrings. We have been trying for a long time to have a brand for Irish herrings, but we have not yet succeeded. I do not know whether this matter comes within the purview of the Scotch Office, but if it does, I should be indebted to the right hon. Gentleman if he would inform me
  846
  what the procedure was in Scotland by which this brand for Scotch herrings was obtained; and perhaps he will also tell us what was the effect of the establishment of the brand on the Scotch fisheries. We have an idea, that a similar brand in Ireland would be an assistance and an encouragement to Irish fisheries. I would also express the hope that the Government will seriously and generally deal with the question of foreign trawlers in territorial waters. We in Ireland have to complain very much of the depredations of steam trawlers, and I hope that the time has come when the Government will put a limit to their operations. I should be glad to add my voice, as the representative of an Irish constituency in which there is a large fishing interest, to the appeal which has been made to the Government to take up this question in a definite and determined manner and to endeavour to deal with it as soon as possible. I do not desire to stand longer between hon. Members from Scotland and their Minister, but I hope the points I have mentioned will be considered.
  *MR. H. S. FOSTER: I hope the Scotch Members will also forgive me, as an English Member representing an important fishing constituency, for intervening in this debate. I think this is a question of importance to every part of the United Kingdom, and one which has been forcibly brought before us by a certain Bill which is now being considered by a Select Committee of the House. I cannot, of course, forecast the recommendations of that Committee, but one thing has come out very clearly in the evidence, and that is that Parliament has been making grants year after year to the Scotch Fisheries Board largely for the purpose of assisting the scientific investigation which it was resolved to undertake as a result of the recommendations of a Royal Commission some years ago, as to whether trawlers did or did not affect the supply of fish. These experiments have been conducted in the Moray Firth, and we have been told very clearly in the Committee to which I have referred, that the expenditure has been practically rendered futile— first of all, because the vessel employed is inadequate for the purpose, being described by officials of the Fisheries Board and other competent witnesses as being

  847
  utterly unsuited owing to its size; and secondly, we are told that very little reliance can be placed on the results of the experiments because of the action of foreign trawlers in the Firth.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to evidence given before a Select Committee, he is not in order in doing so until the Committee has reported. If he is referring to evidence obtained in any other way he is of course in order.
  *MR, H. S. FOSTER: I was referring to matters of public knowledge which have appeared in the Reports of the Scotch Fishery Board. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the state of things in the Moray Firth as being little short of a scandal, and as I understand, we have no power beyond the three-mile limit to prohibit foreign trawlers from fishing, but we can apparently prohibit our own fellow-subjects in any part of the world, as in the case of the Moray Firth and the Behring Sea. It is a matter of the very greatest importance to our fisheries that the Government should make some serious effort to arrive at an international agreement with the North Sea Powers for the protection of the fisheries. That was urged by a Committee of this House in 1893, and so far as I am aware, nothing has since been attempted in that direction. There is a theory that that would be very difficult until we have done something in the matter ourselves; but we have actually prohibited our own men from fishing in what are practically our own waters, though for certain purposes they are also the high seas. Up to the present we have got no sort of assistance from foreign countries, and I believe no serious endeavour to secure it has been made. It is surely nothing short of a scandal that Scotch trawlers should be prohibited from fishing in these waters, while we allow foreign trawlers to fish in them. That is a great hardship, and applies to all Her Majesty's subjects who might desire to fish in these waters. I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to give the Committee some assurance that it is the intention of the Government at an early date to invite the various Powers bordering on the North Sea to come into a conference in order to consider whether some steps should not be taken by international
  848
  agreement, I will not say to stop over fishing, because that can be regulated by supply and demand at any time, but to protect those areas from which Scotland draws the largest supply of her fish. That will be found to be the most effective remedy. At the present moment the. goose that lays the golden eggs is being killed. There has been an immense increase in the capital employed in the fishing industry and in the catching power of trawlers, not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the coast of the United Kingdom, and unless something is done to protect the fishing areas—and nothing effective can be done except by international agreement—the result will be that the price of fish will continue to rise, because the supply will continue to fall. I apologise for intervening between the Scotch Members and the Lord Advocate, but the question is one in which increasing interest is now being taken in every part of the United Kingdom.
  MR. TENNANT: The Scotch Members ought to thank the hon. Baronet, and also the hon. Member opposite, for having taken up the cause we have so often urged in this House— namely, that increased attention should be given to the condition of the fishing industry in Scotland. One matter which was mentioned by the hon. Member opposite struck me very forcibly. He talked about the amount of capital that was now being embarked in the fishing industry. That is perfectly true, but the fishermen cannot take their capital out of that industry, because they cannot change their calling all at once. I have often wondered whether the Government are alive to the very serious condition of affairs all round our coasts. In my own constituency last winter men were literally starving, and, rightly or wrongly, they attributed their condition to the amount of trawling going on. I have only risen, to heartily support the motion of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire.
  *MR. WASON: I wish to ask a question with reference to the salmon fishery on the River Forth. A decision was given in the House of Peers by which salmon fishing is prohibited in a certain way— namely, by "took and haul "and "hang; nets," but nothing whatever was said about the universal practice of drift net

  849
  fishing, and I have been asked to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman whether or not the decision prohibits that practice, and also whether stake-nets are prohibited.
  MR. CROMBIE: I do not think it necessary to enter into the question of trawling, because I have frequently expressed the same views as were expressed by the Member for East Aberdeenshire to-night. I want especially to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to another matter raised by my hon. friend, and that is the migration of fishermen to the towns. This matter has been going on for many years, and it is a very slow but very serious social revolution. In my own constituency villages which twenty years ago were important fishing centres have not now a single boat. Finnon, which gave its name to the celebrated brand of haddocks, has at the present moment scarcely a fisherman, and the same thing is happening in other villages. I do not suggest that the Government can stop this migration, because I believe it is a movement which depends on questions of political economy beyond the limits of the Government, but I think that the Government should recognise it and not shut their eyes to it. I believe that the main cause of this migration is that the fishermen in the small harbours cannot now pursue their calling with success because these harbours will not accommodate the larger boats now required. Not only that, but the insurance companies refuse to insure boats in harbours which are not entirely safe. Recently a great disaster happened in a small fishing town, and not one of the boats which had been lost were insured. I myself reflected on the fishermen for not having done so, and was informed that the insurance companies would not insure a single boat from that harbour. It seems to me that the Scotch Fisheries Board does not recognise the state of things which exists. It is too ready to grant sums of money to small farmers on whom it should not be spent. I think we had a case in the constituency of my hon. friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire in which a large sum of money was spent on a harbour, and yet the fishermen left the harbour and came into Aberdeen. It does seem to me that this money, under such circumstances, was wasted, and that it
  850
  would be much better for the Fisheries. Board to spend money on the large harbours that could accommodate large boats, and that would be suitable for the requirements of modern fishing. But that is not the policy of the Board. Whenever a harbour is not altogether a fishing harbour—if merchandise is brought into' it—then it gets no grant. Stokehaven, which might be made one of the finest, harbours on the coast, has applied over and over again for a grant, but has been, refused because it is not purely a fishing, harbour, although if it got a grant it could have accommodated many villages in the vicinity. I think the Fishery Board might recognise the trend of. modern affairs better than it does.
  *MR. WEIRsaid he should like to ask: the Lord Advocate what steps had been taken under the North Sea Fisheries Convention to keep foreign trawlers out of the Moray Firth. Last year there were fifty-two foreign trawlers fishing in the Firth. Year after year the matter has been brought forward and, he regretted, to say that nothing had been done to bring about the cessation of such an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and instead of matters showing an improvement they were going from bad to worse. The answer given to him in the House sometime ago showed that twenty-three more foreign trawlers were engaged in the; Moray Firth last year than in the previous year. Was it not time that some energetic steps should be taken by the: Secretary for Scotland, and his colleagues in the Cabinet, to put a stop to such a state of matters? The Committee heard from another hon. Member representing a fishing constituency that whole villages and towns were being depopulated on, account of the trawlers carrying on their work within the three mile limit. He was not condemning the trawlers, but they should fish out at sea. Why did not Lord Salisbury take steps to remedy that grievance, and allow line fishermen a chance of getting a living? On the 3rd April last he had asked for information as to how many days foreign trawlers had been fishing in the Moray Firth, and he was informed that the details he had asked for could not be given without going over the logs of the cruisers, for the whole year. He thought that the Committee had better know where they were. Was it that the

  851
  commanders of the cruisers set the Secretary for Scotland at defiance, or was the reply merely an evasive answer to get rid of a troublesome question? If these commanders set the Secretary for Scotland at defiance, what had the Lord Advocate to say? If he were in the Transvaal he would have them shot straight away in the interests of discipline. One of these commanders was paid £100 a year by the Fishery Board for Scotland, and yet he set that Board at defiance. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would show a little more backbone in such matters. British trawlers were excluded from the Moray Firth, while foreign trawlers fished in it. He did not want British trawlers in the Firth, but he thought all the trawlers ought to be cleared out. It was a gross injustice that foreign trawlers should be allowed to sweep the harbours of the Moray Firth and take the fish to English ports for sale. That ought to be stopped, and he sincerely trusted that the Lord Advocate would impress on the Secretary for Scotland the necessity of not allowing the matter to pass by from year to year. It had a serious effect indeed on the fishermen along the coast of Scotland. He had received a copy of a memorial within the last few days, which had been sent to the Secretary for Scotland from ten different associations in Scotland, urging the Government to send down one or two more cruisers to watch the coast around the Hebrides, which was a magnificent fishing ground. They were, told that captures were effected at times—of course they were; but the very fact that there were so many captures showed that the evil was an increasing one. Let the Secretary for Scotland approach the First Lord of the Admiralty on the matter. He himself had been successful in getting a cruiser out of the right hon. Gentleman for the coast of Scotland, and if a humble Member could do that why could not the Secretary for Scotland do it also? He asked what was the Lord Advocate about to allow such a state of things to continue? Let the trawlers fish outside if they liked, but they should be prevented from acting the part of sea robbers and stealing what belonged to the line fishermen. The fishing villages were being desolated because of the trawlers and because of the insufficient number of cruisers to look after them. It was true patriotism to prevent men who would fill the ranks of the Army and Navy from being swept away into the
  852
  large cities, because the Government could not get in the slums of large towns men like they could get in the Hebrides and along the coast of Scotland. In 1894 there were 11,217 registered fishing boats in Scotland, and in 1898 there were only 10,485, or a decrease of 732.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What about the trawlers?
  *MR. WEIRsaid that no doubt the Lord Advocate would be able to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desired. What had become of those boats and their crews? Many of the men had gone into the towns, and did the best they could to get a living. But in England what was the result? The English fishing boats had increased in the same period by 320. He could only suppose that the fisheries round the coast of England were bettor looked after by the Admiralty cruisers. They did not remain in harbour at night. They were out at sea doing their work, and preventing the fishing beds being depleted by trawlers in the same way as they were on the coasts of Scotland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to look into this Department, for which he was solely and absolutely responsible, and see that the cruisers did not remain in harbour during the night. Night was the time to go out and catch the trawlers, and send them to the bottom of the sea if necessary. Trawlers were the curse of the Lews, where people who used to get a comfortable living were now almost starving in consequence of their action. He appealed once more to the Lord Advocate to confer with the First Lord of the Treasury, and get more money for cruisers, and with the Admiralty to obtain an addition to the fleet of cruisers. He was sure that with a little careful management and negotiation much more could be done in that way than at present. He had found, as a humble Member of the House, that the First Lord of the Admiralty was "come-at-able" and conciliatory. He now came to the question of harbours and piers. There was a sum of £3,000 for grants-in-aid for the construction of piers and quays. It ought to be a very much larger sum, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would have it increased, because it was so badly wanted. Portmahomack harbour was silting up with sand, and so was Balintore; while

  853
  at Avoch, on the east coast of Ross-shire, fourteen or fifteen fishing boats had been smashed for want of shelter. On the west coast there was Portnagurran, Broad Bay, Island of Lewis. The Walpole Commission reported that a harbour was badly wanted there, and would cost £30,000. That Commission seemed to be dust thrown in the eyes of the Scotch Members to stave off' the evil day. No effort had been made to build the harbour at Portnagurran, where at present there was only a little boat-slip, which was of no earthly good in a storm. A harbour at Portnagurran would not only be of advantage to the fishing village there, but would form a splendid harbour of refuge for the whole north-west of Scotland. What he complained of was that nothing was done, and though any amount of money could be provided for the landlords, no effort was made to carry out the useful works recommended to the Government by the Commission which they themselves had appointed. There was great laxity in the administration of the Fishery Board for Scotland. Of course the right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Fishery Board was under the control of the Secretary for Scotland, who put the muzzle or the brake on; but would the Lord Advocate see what could be done to get these matters attended to? Other hon. Members could speak of the wants of their own constituencies; he spoke of a few of his own which were so sadly and grossly neglected. They were asked to vote £365 a year for a scientific superintendent, and £262 a year for an assistant inspector of sea fisheries, and it was stated in a footnote that these sums included an allowance for office rent. He supposed that they put that allowance in their pockets. Where were these offices? He did not believe they existed. But if they did exist, how was it that the office of the Fishery Board, in Edinburgh could not be used for these purposes? He had visited the Fishery Board Office, where there were a number of very elegant rooms which did not seem to be very much used. It was a dead and dreamy sort of place; some of the rooms might be utilised by these gentlemen instead of the taxpayers' money being taken for other offices. It was very painful to bring forward such matters year after year, and to find that no effort was made by the Scottish Office to remedy the evils that existed. The Secretary for
  854
  Scotland was paid £2,000 a year; but he would pay him £5,000 if the right hon. Gentleman would get the work thoroughly well done. He thought that Lord Salisbury might easily have arranged with the North Sea Powers to bring about a settlement of the Fisheries Convention. It was a pity that this country had not taken the initiative at the Hydrographical Conference. That had been done by Sweden, and Great Britain had been compelled to follow the lead of poor little Sweden. This matter of the Fisheries Convention had been going on for two and a half years, and it was time that the Papers were in the hands of the Members of the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was impossible not to feel deep sympathy with the hon. Gentleman opposite. He had informed the Committee that he had gone to the Fishery Board Office, and having expounded his views on Fisheries to the members of the Board, he found them dreamy.
  *MR. WEIKsaid he never said anything of the kind. He had gone to the Fishery Board Office and found many elegant rooms, but they were empty, and he thought they might be put to a better use. He never said that the Fishery Commissioners were dreamy; it was the rooms that were dreamy. He hoped that the hon. Member would be more careful, and not misrepresent him.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that if the hon. Member found the rooms were empty, it was very clear that the Commissioners knew the hon. Member was coming. It was impossible not to sympathise with hon. Members opposite in their complaint as to the depletion of the fishing villages. The line fishermen were fine sailors, and better men could not be found along the coast; but he did not think that the remedy for the misfortunes of those into fishermen would be discovered in the direction indicated by the hon. Member, who suggested that the Lord Advocate should take command of a gunboat and go about sinking all the trawlers which came within the three-mile limit. But if the Lord Advocate did that they should lose his presence in the House.
  AN HON. MEMBER: We would not miss him here.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman might go as his first lieutenant. The Scottish Fishery Board was the only Department of the State which was occupied with scientific investigations in regard to fish and fisheries, and the total Vote only amounted to £18,000. It was true that £1,000 was paid in England towards the funds of the Marine Biological Institute; but he thought it was disgraceful and discreditable to this country that so small an amount should be paid in the United Kingdom, when they remembered that the United States had a permanent Fishery Commission for the same purposes, and for which it paid no less a sum than £97,000 a year. The reason he was so anxious for a scientific investigation into the life history of fish and their migrations was that at the present moment there existed the most profound ignorance in regard to all these matters. His belief was that it was a delusion that trawlers destroyed the line fisheries. Most fishermen believed that the eggs of large edible fish were laid upon the ground, and that when the trawl lay upon the ground it destroyed those eggs, and consequently the fish, but they now know that to be wrong. They now knew that the eggs lay upon the water, and that the trawl therefore did no harm. He believed the allegation against the trawlers was absolutely unfounded. It might be that the condition of the line fishermen was duo to causes which the Government could not help. It had been said that the number of line fishermen was decreasing, and many of them may have gone inland, or crossed the border and come to England, and given up the calling of a line fisherman for some other occupation, but oven now there was an enormous number of men still engaged in that occupation. With regard to the Moray Firth, he did not know whether any man could defend the action of those responsible for excluding English and Scotch fishermen from that part of the Moray Firth which was, and always must remain, open to the rest of the world. Whatever happened, this country could not undertake to police the high seas, and though we might exclude our own people we could not exclude foreigners from trawling in that part of the Moray Firth, which must always remain open to the fishing fleets of the world. He could never understand why that portion of the Moray Firth was
  856
  closed to British fishermen. With regard, to an international agreement, that was not an easy thing to enter into, but, assuming that it could be entered into, would it be wise? There was an enormous number of fishermen carrying on, their occupation round our coasts, and if such an agreement was come to the boats of all these men would be liable to be boarded, searched, and detained, not by our own gunboats, but the police boats of every foreign nation. He was not prepared to go that length, and, if the gunboats of all nations were given such power over all our fishermen who fish the North Sea, we should very soon repeal it. He did not believe that that was the remedy Some of the evils were, no doubt, somewhat exaggerated. He was convinced that the decrease was due to other causes than the depredations of the trawlers, and he hoped the Committee would consider very carefully any action they might take in the matter.
  MR. SOUTTAEsaid that, so far as he could see, whenever this Vote was discussed hon. Gentlemen immediately attacked the trawling industry. He did not believe in the breaking of the law by trawlers, but he did not think, these constant attacks were justified. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had, he thought, hit the nail on the head. If there had been anything wrong in the action taken with regard to the Moray Firth, it was the exclusion from that water of the British trawlers. The matter had been approached from a wrong standpoint by the hon. Member for Ross and. Cromarty, and Scotchmen, of all men, should not be the ones to take up such a position as they had with regard to it from an economic point of view. The fact of the matter was, the fishing industry was undergoing a great change. Trawling was as great an advance upon line fishing as the express train upon the stage coach, and it must inevitably take its place. The number of line fishermen had no. doubt diminished, but there was no harm in that; they had not disappeared, as the hon. Gentleman would have the Committee believe, they had simply taken to other occupations and moved into the towns. The population of Aberdeen, where the air was just as salubrious, was increasing, and its wealth was increasing by leaps and bounds, owing to the trawling industry, and these fishermen were to

  857
  be found there. Hon. Members speaking of the destruction of fish appeared to think that a day was coming when the supply would not be equal to the demand, but no such misapprehension need exist, for the fact had been abundantly proved that if all the world was to feed upon fish, and nothing else, there was abundance in the sea, and the supply would always exceed the demand.
  MR. HEDDERWICKsaid that, but for the remarks of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, he should not have intervened in the debate. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had rather missed the point, which was trawling within the three-mile limit, and had endeavoured to draw the attention of the Committee away from that point by suggesting that the whole matter should be settled by some great Commission. There would be no objection to a Commission which would set at rest much which was not at present known with regard to this subject; but the immediate point was not in connection with this great scientific problem; the immediate question revolved round the law which had been made by the House that no trawling should be allowed within a limit of three miles from the shore. If that law was broken it was as much the duty of the Government to arrest the offenders as it was their duty to arrest a housebreaker or a thief. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty was therefore right when he complained and found fault with the Fishery Board. Day and night on the lonely shores of Scotland that law was continually being violated, and it was only fair to say that the efforts made for policing these waters were not adequate to cope with the violators of the law. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire was, no doubt, animated by admirable desires when he deprecated the attacks made upon the trawlers, but what he (Mr. Hedderwick) wished to point out was that there was room for the line fishermen and the trawlers as well, if trawlers conformed to the law and did not trawl where they had no right to trawl—but where they did—to the great detriment of the line fishermen, who, as the Lord Advocate had pointed out, were most valuable men to the State. There were 10,000 men engaged in trawling, against 34,000 line fishermen, who had to earn their living under conditions
  858
  of great peril, and who by that very peril provided the Navy with the best men. The hon. Member was under an entire misapprehension if he supposed that all parts of the ocean were stocked with edible fish. If the hon. Member wont to one part of the ocean he might find no fish at all, whilst if he went to another he would find a breed of fish that he had never seen before. If the ocean was swarming with fish, how was it that English soles were not found on the coast' of Spain, for instance, or New York? English turbot was not found in all parts of the sea. Fish had their habitats and feeding grounds in particular places, and though they laid their spawn on the water the spawn came close to the shore and only gradually receded into the deeper water, but never into the deep parts of the ocean. Some fish bred in some parts and some in others, and those parts of the coast where they bred were invaluable as nurseries, and it was as much to the interest of the trawler as of the line fisherman that these nurseries should be kept inviolate. It was better for the trawler to fish in deep water, because there he would get the mature fish that were bred in the shallows. If, owing to the competition which existed, and the absence of protection, these nurseries were invaded and harried and scarified so that no fish could find time to rest or breed there, the result must inevitably be that our great fishery beds would be rendered sterile. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, he knew, had no desire to encourage the trawlers to break the law, and he would no doubt agree with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty in his appeal to the Government that they should do something more than they had done up to the present to preserve these spawning beds and breeding grounds and the waters within the three-mile limit from the depredations of the trawlers.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: The debate to which we have listened has ranged over a great variety of subjects. I think we are much indebted to the hon. Gentleman who brought the subject of sea fisheries before the House, because it is one which really deserves to be much more widely discussed and known than it is at present. The opinions which have been expressed on one side and the other by various Members during the debate to-night seem to show that there is a considerable conflict of opinion

  859
  and diversity of view in regard to the question of the North Sea fisheries. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the subject pointed out how, in his opinion, undoubtedly the exhaustion of the North Sea fisheries had been made clear. The fishermen now do go further in pursuit of their calling, and that in spite of enormously increased catching power. In spite of greater efficiency, fishermen have to go greater distances than ever in order practically to maintain, and no more than maintain, the present supply of fish. If those who are interested in the development of the country neglect the physical resources of the sea, which are so valuable a source of food supply to the country, we shall inevitably have to do what has been done in foreign countries— in the United States and other parts of the world—in the way of investigating the question of fish food supply. What has been done in other countries shows undoubtedly how far behind we have lagged in this matter. The real truth of the matter is that there has been considerable over-fishing in the seas in which we fish. Although there is no scientific investigation to support the theory, it is quite possible and probable that the supply of fish is inexhaustible, as only fish of a certain kind and ago come into the estuaries and bays and inlets of the country. I think, therefore, it is clear that the supply of fish in the North Sea is not necessarily recruited by fish coming in from other parts of the world. All these points remain very much matters of doubt and supposition, very much matters of hypothesis, and I do not think it is for any of us to dogmatist on the subject. My purpose in rising is to en force one consideration upon the attention of the Lord Advocate, which has a bearing on this matter. It would be of no service at present to enter into the controversy which has been raised to-night as to the closing or non-closing of the Moray Firth. In my opinion, for what it is worth, the closing of the Moray Firth is entirely justifiable not only on purely scientific grounds, but on economical and social grounds, and, if you like, on political grounds in the best sense of the word. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire has pointed out how a transition is going on in the fishing industry as in other industries to which he referred, but it is surely proper statesmanship on the part of any Government to modify and reduce as
  860
  far as possible the inevitable friction and hardship involved in any great transition of the kind. More than that, I think that, going from present-day considerations to those of the future, it will be found that as a field for investigation the Moray Firth is very valuable to this country, and that it is possible, as I hope it may be later on, for co-operation between the North Sea Powers to advance further than they have at present in investigating the subject. It will be seen that we have done our duty in endeavouring to investigate questions which can only be investigated in a closed area. We shall have done our duty so far as lies in our power in having other areas closed so that scientific research may be valuably assisted in the future. Various suggestions and statements were made in the debate which I daresay it will be for the Lord Advocate to take notice of, and which he is far better qualified to deal with than I am. But be that as it may, I regret that this debate should assume an aspect of wrangling between different classes of fishermen in the country. There is room for both, and I wish to point out a consideration which should not be lost sight of in regard to the fisheries in Scotland. A very valuable part of the fisheries in Scotland, in common with other parts, is the herring fisheries. In considering the livelihood, circumstances, and conditions of the fishermen of Scotland, you must take into account that 70 per cent. of the catch and 50 per cent. of the value of the fish in Scotland are herrings, and, therefore, in so far as that proportion goes, and so far as that interest goes, they are entirely withdrawn from any controversy whatever between line fishermen and trawl fishermen, whose industry is confined to white, flat, or round fish, which must be distinguished entirely from the herring fisheries. As long as you have herring fisheries you must consider what their interest is and what the occupation of the fishermen is for the rest of the year. In regard to the Moray Firth, I wish to impress upon the Lord Advocate the inadequacy of the "Garland" as a ship for scientific investigation. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself the inadequacy of the "Garland," for it has been pointed out by the Fishery Board and in the Committee Report of 1893. The investigations which the Fishery Board have conducted have been hampered and to

  861
  some extent rendered nugatory by the inefficiency of the "Garland" Practically that ship can do no very great work, except on the west coast, and everyone knows requires a sea-going ship, well equipped and of sufficient size, to do the work some of the trawlers do on the east coast of Scotland; and in order to bring the investigations up to date and make them useful for the purpose of comparison with the practical work done by vessels of much larger size, I would urge most respectfully the right hon. Gentleman that in order to carry out the wish expressed by the Fishery Board for Scotland it is very necessary to equip them with a better vessel than at present. It is obvious to everyone who reads the Fishery Board Report as to the size of the vessels sent out to follow the trawlers within the three-mile limit. I think there should be a cruiser able to do that work, but the Government should look to the further strengthening of the Hoot now engaged in co-operation with the ships of the Royal Navy in policing these waters. As a matter of fact the policing of these waters is a very serious cost to the country, and I think the system is more or less on its trial. Many critics have during this debate rather cast doubt on the advisability of a strong enforcement of the three-mile limit. The three-mile limit is not peculiar to this country; it is common to all the countries which have coasts on the North Sea; and I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs, that that being the law we should have it enforced.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Major JAMESON, Clare, W.). House counted, and forty Members being found present.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (continuing): The consideration I wish to enforce on the House is that the three-mile limit is a practical system, and, apart from any controversy between liners and trawlers, we must enforce that if only to give the system a trial. There are many critics who say that we get no gain by this— no gain in the fish food supply, no gain to the interest of the country in any respect. That is a matter of question, and one which we shall have to settle later on by investigation, but by all moans let us have efficient methods of policing. Early in the debate great doubt was thrown upon the possibility of
  862
  policing the North Sea as a whole. The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn talked about policing the high seas. Let us talk about the North Sea and not go further a field at present There is every evidence to show, not from this country alone but from other countries, that there has been exhaustion there. I mention this to impress my own view in regard to international action in this matter. Whether justified or not, I believe there is a strong conviction in the minds of some hon. Members here and some people outside the House that the Government has not done all it could to advance the policy of international cooperation in this direction. We have never been able, so far as I am aware, to get any satisfactory assurance that the Government has really done anything practical in this matter. It may require time, I admit, to deal with the great difficulties of the situation, but as it is in the interest of foreign countries bordering on the North Sea not less than our own interest, surely that affords an opportunity for pressing the idea of protecting in some way the fisheries of the North Sea. I cannot avoid the conviction that the Government have not done as much as might have been done to press forward this question, whether as regards an extended limit on the closing of areas, or whatever the proper proposal is. The Government have not convinced a number of people interested in this question that they have really made any practical and earnest endeavour to obtain any measure of international co-operation. Everything that was made known to the House—and by that we are obliged to judge—in regard even to the earlier attempts at cooperation seemed to me to indicate very great supineness in the matter, and I regret it most truly, for I believe from the evidence that comes from all sides that it is only by such international co-operation that we can have any hope of preserving the valuable fishing grounds of the North Sea, by whatever means it may be desirable to protect them. In the first place, lot us do all we can in this country to inform ourselves in regard to the fisheries, of the country. The Fishery Board for Scotland has been instanced to-night as having done most valuable work in this direction. I would plead with the Lord Advocate and the Government to enable i that Board to do its work effectively, and for that purpose to equip it more effi-

  863
  ciently with the means of scientific investigation. The point I wish to urge upon him is the inefficiency of the present vessel for scientific investigation. Let us go further if you like, and endeavour to organise the fisheries of the other parts of the United Kingdom, so that it may be clearly shown that this country at any rate is doing what it can in this respect. The fact that hon. Members for Ireland and also for England have taken part in this debate seems to indicate that interest in this question is spreading. It is a very good thing that it should, because the fishing industry is a very valuable one, whether as regards the food supply of the country or occupation for the fishermen; but when you look beyond Scotland there is a lamentable want of organisation. Neither in England nor Ireland is there organisation comparable at all——
  *THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the remarks of the hon. Member on this matter were not relevant to the Vote under consideration.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I will certainly endeavour to keep within the limits. Earlier in the debate the whole question of the North Sea was brought up in connection with the Stockholm Conference, to which this Government sent a delegate last year. I was only trying to point out that if we wish to stand well in any international effort to preserve the fisheries of the North Sea, first of all we should do what we can at home. The £18,000 which is reckoned Scotch expenditure in connection with this work is for a service which ought to be borne by the whole of the United Kingdom. Everyone interested in the question recognises the valuable work done by the Fishery Board for Scotland. Let that work be extended, and carried on not only in Scotland, but in England and Ireland. Let the territorial limits be properly policed, not only off Scotland, but off England and Ireland. I venture to suggest that there should be a thorough inquiry into the condition of the fisheries of this country. In 1863 there was a very valuable Commission, of which Professor Huxley and Sir James Kerr were members. They, with great labour and pains, placed on record the results of perhaps the most valuable investigation that has taken place in this matter.
  864
  There was another Commission about 1888, which, I think, was confined to the investigation of the effect of beam-trawling in the North Sea. There was also a Commission in 1893, but the weakness of it was this—and I think the same thing will be found in connection with any other Committee assembled within these walls to investigate this question—that you cannot get proper evidence at this time of the year, when fishermen are employed elsewhere. I mention that point to enforce the desirability of having a further inquiry into the whole subject. Let the inquiry take what form it may, and whatever form the Government deem most desirable. Here we are in 1900, having had no real inquiry into the subject since 1863. If we are ever to enter into any international agreement on this matter we must first be thoroughly satisfied as to our own facts, and have an opinion based on those facts. We ought to have a distinct policy to advocate, and endeavour to carry it out with the help and co-operation of other nations. We are not doing so much as we ought to be doing in this matter; we are not doing as much as the magnitude and relative importance of this great interest of the country justify. I would urge most earnestly that everything possible should be done to create public interest in this question, and to convince the public that it really is important that these interests, very valuable in themselves and very important to the country as a whole, which are threatened with extinction, should receive consideration and investigation.
  MR. BRYCEagreed that these debates were almost the same every year; most of the speeches had been so similar to those delivered during the preceding four or five years that one might almost have had a phonograph and reeled off the old speeches instead of having a fresh debate. There were always the same complaints as to the neglect of the Fishery Board, the extension of the three-mile limit, the grievance about Moray Firth, the international agreement, and so forth, but nothing got any forwarder. There was one point which had advanced a little during the year, and that was that more Members had recognised the necessity for having a proper scientific inquiry into the condition of the fisheries. That was a very material point, as Members who asked for international

  865
  action were really a little premature, because no international agreement could be arrived at until there were the proper scientific data to go upon. So little was absolutely known in the matter; it was not known even to what extent trawling was doing harm. It was always assumed that trawling was doing harm, and several Members had gone back to that well-worn theme in the course of the evening, but the extent of the damage was unknown. A valuable contribution to the debate had been made by the hon. Member who called attention to other causes which were depleting the supply, and he commended that speech to the attention of the Lord Advocate and the Government. The question of the Moray Firth, again, was an old grievance, and he adverted to it merely to call attention to the ridiculous position in which the question now stood. It had been already pointed out that the only effect of the present law was to allow foreign trawlers to go there, while our own fishermen were prevented. The number of trawlers in the Moray Firth had been estimated at twenty-three, but according to the evidence supplied to him there were sometimes as many as fifty foreign trawlers there. Moray Firth was a fairly large piece of water, but still, fifty trawlers was a very large number for such an area, and it must be perfectly obvious that the presence of those trawlers entirely destroyed the value of any experiment in the closing of the Firth to our own fishermen. The Committee should remember it was proposed to close the Moray Firth not as a permanent measure, but for a certain time in order to enable the experiment to be tried, and to see whether the supply would increase if the spawning grounds were not disturbed by the operation of trawlers. But four or five years ago the foreign trawlers appeared, their numbers had continued to increase, and it was admitted on all hands that their presence entirely vitiated the experiment, and that it was not worth while continuing it. The experiment could not now be properly tried, and it was very doubtful whether, if the British trawler were allowed in, it would further vitiate the experiment. However, he did not wish to argue that question, but all were agreed that the value of the experiment was destroyed by the presence of the foreign trawlers, and there was also the rankling sense of injustice in the minds of the line fishermen when they saw the foreign
  866
  trawlers coming in and reaping this harvest. Surely such an absurd condition, which no one had denounced more warmly and clearly than the present Prime Minister some years ago, would not be allowed by the Government to continue indefinitely. The matter would have to be dealt with, either by the condition being withdrawn, or by prohibiting foreign trawlers going into the Firth. To make an international agreement such as that would involve, some consideration would have to be given to the foreign trawlers, or an arrangement would have to be made covering the whole of the North Sea. With regard to the general question, the only interest which had to be considered was that of the consumer—not only the consumer of the present, but also the consumer of the future. In these fisheries, particularly those of the North Sea, there was a large and important source of national wealth; it was alleged that that source of national wealth was being wasted by improvident methods of fishing, and certainly it was a matter for investigation. The remedy for some of the injuries suffered by the fishing industry was to be found in getting a proper knowledge of the practical effects of the present system; and, considering the great difficulties which must necessarily arise, that knowledge could not be acquired without some elaborate apparatus, without the expenditure of some years upon the task, and without the co-operation of the principal maritime Powers adjoining the North Sea. The Stockholm Conference seemed to offer an opportunity of having such a joint investigation, and perhaps the Lord Advocate would be able to tell the Committee what progress that Conference had made, and whether its investigations were being conducted on a sufficiently large scale. Several Members had observed that the Fishery Board, although it was prosecuting its inquiries, did not devote enough money or employ sufficient apparatus or observers to make the investigation complete; but he was confident the Committee would not grudge more money in order to enable the Board to prosecute its inquiries properly. He would not discuss the question of an international agreement or the extension of the three mile limit; the arguments for and against had been urged upon the Committee several times. It seemed to him that the knowledge of the facts

  867
  was preliminary to everything else, and until they had that knowledge it was not much use talking about an international agreement. He therefore joined very cordially in the suggestion of several hon. Members that the Government should take up the question as a whole, and seriously consider the advisability of initiating an investigation on the largest possible basis, and of trying to get the other Powers adjoining the North Sea to co-operate. If that was done they would be in a position to go forward, and he was certain that if the result of that investigation showed that any single class of fishermen were improperly suffering, or that any particular method of fishing was doing injury, there would be no difficulty in carrying remedial measures through the House. The interest of one particular class must not be permitted to stand in the way of a national benefit, and it was from that point of view that this question must be considered.
  *MAJOR JAMESONsaid it was to be regretted the Government had not taken some action with regard to steam trawling. Year after year the same battle was fought, but without redress, and it was somewhat disheartening to find Scotch Members putting down such very small reductions as £10 or £100. In such a case a reduction equivalent to the whole Vote should be moved, but Scotchmen were always economical, and they were economical even in the reductions they moved. Every Irish Member was in absolute accord with the complaints which had been made by the Scotch Members, as, year by year, the fishing industries on their coasts were going out of existence, and he spoke as the representative of a constituency in Ireland who suffered cruelly from the depredations of trawlers, and who had not sufficient boats and nets to carry on their trade. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were always talking about the difficulty of getting sailors and naval reserves, but was not the extermination of the fishing industries the very worst way of obviating the difficulty? He earnestly hoped the Lord Advocate, as the mouthpiece of the Government, would point out to the Secretary for Scotland that this matter must be attended to, that it could not go on year after year as it had done, and
  868
  that the demands of the fishermen of Scotland must once and for all be dealt with. If the mover of the Amendment went to a division he should be most happy to support him.
  MR. POWERthorougly agreed with the remarks of the previous speaker, as the fishermen of Ireland were suffering tremendously from steam trawlers. Scotland very wisely some years ago prevented these trawlers coming within the three mile limit, but the result had been that a large number of those steam trawlers which had previously infested the Scotch coast now frequented the Irish coast, and were doing greater harm than in the case of Scotland. The reason they did greater harm on the Irish coasts was that the authorities had passed bye-laws prohibiting trawling within the three-mile limit, but they had no power to enforce those bye-laws against foreign trawlers. His reason for rising was to ask the Lord Advocate to be good enough to inform him in what way in Scotland they prevented the steam trawlers coming within the prescribed limits, whether they had gunboats, and, if so, how many?
  DR. CLARKsaid it was perfectly true these were old complaints, but they had to be repeated year after year, because nothing was done to remedy the matters, complained of. In this Vote there were three items for paying the salaries of naval officers who ought to see that the law was carried out, and they had to complain that, notwithstanding the fact that they were paying this money, the law was not carried out, and the policing was inefficient. The gunboats on the Danish coast did not look upon policing work as derogatory, and the result was that the law there was carried out, and if the trawlers, when they came to the Scotch coast, met with the same reception as on the Danish coast, there would be nothing to complain of. Another evil, and one which he had not heard alluded to, was that the herring fishery was being seriously affected by the trawlers. The trawlers caught the herrings by day, and day-trawled herrings could not be properly cured, with the result that the reputation of the finest brand of herrings was being entirely ruined. That was a question affecting the right hon. Gentle-man himself, because many of his own

  869
  constituents were engaged in fishing for herrings, and therefore he trusted the Fishery Board would take some stops in the matter.
  SIR MARK STEWARTdesired to say a word in regard to the trawlers which were continually coming up from the south of England to many of the beds on the south-west of Scotland. Several hon. Members appeared to be of the opinion that these trawlers did no harm whatever, but when it was found the number of fish was seriously diminishing there must be some reason for it. It was admitted on all hands that during recent years there had been great improvements in the modes of catching fish, the manipulation of the nets, and so on. If that was the case, and yet at the same time the supply of fish was so enormously diminishing, some very substantial reason must exist, and it was a matter the Government should take into very serious consideration. He was quite at one with those who thought an inquiry should be set on foot. He would go further and say that not only ought a Departmental inquiry to be made, but a Commission should be established to consider all the many questions affecting the fisheries on the coasts and also the inland fisheries of the country. He was very anxious to hear from the Lord Advocate what measures were being adopted by the Government, what effect the recent important decision of the House of Lords was likely to have, and whether or not the number of gunboats on the coast of Scotland was to be increased.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, who initiated this debate, complained that he was tired of talking so often on these old subjects and of bringing up the old grievances, and that complaint was reiterated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, who went so far as to say that he thought a phonograph might supply sufficient occupation for the evening and save us the trouble of debating the question. In one sense, I do not know that we have ever had so satisfactory a debate as that of to-night, because, although in other years hon. Members have joined in a common abuse of the Fishery Board, which has not been altogether absent on this occasion, it has never been made so clear that although they are all anxious to provide
  870
  some remedy they are really blaming the Fishery Board for precisely opposite reasons. We have really never had such a contrast between those who advocate the claims of the trawlers on the one hand and the claims of the line fishermen on the other, as we have had to-night. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, however, began with making a quotation from a speech of the President of the Board of Trade, which, taken by itself, I think is capable of being grossly misunderstood. The hon. Member said he need not do anything more to show the serious condition the fisheries were in than to quote a sentence of my right hon. friend which he used in introducing the Bill at present before the House for dealing with sea fisheries—
  "That our fishery grounds are being depleted year by year by the operation of the trawl."
  Hearing that sentence as the hon. Member used it to-night, I cannot help thinking the Committee would be led to understand that that would imply the unlawful navigation of trawlers in forbidden waters. What I want to point out is, that my right hon. friend used that sentence in regard to the well-known beds in the North Sea, not territorial waters at all, but on the other side, on the coasts of Norway and Germany. Whatever we may be able to do for the policing of the fisheries, it is obvious that none of our operations would have any effect on what was being done on those fishery beds. The complaints by the hon. Member really come back to the old and familiar complaints, ineffectiveness of sea-policing, and not having entered into an international agreement. The attack naturally developed in the course of the debate, but in rather a curious way, as is shown by the speeches of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, who opened the debate, and the hon. Member for the Lowestoft Division of Suffolk. Both hon. Members made use of the same phrase in reference to the Moray Firth. Both said that the position of the Moray Firth was a scandal; but what does that mean? The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire says it is a scandal because the foreign trawlers are not kept out. The hon. Member for Lowestoft says it is a scandal because the British trawlers are not let in. So that though they are unanimous in saying it is a scandal, when they came to apply the remedy it would be the opposite in the one

  871
  case to what it would be in the other. That was the beginning of the controversy, and as I have said it developed until, I think, we have never had such an outspoken debate by those who, on the one hand, favour the trawlers and those who do not. Hon. Members from Ireland who are indirectly interested in this question take the same line as the hon. Member for Lowestoft, and the hon. Member who addressed us to-night spoke in favour of the admission of foreign trawlers. With regard to the inefficiency of sea policing, I deny that there has been any inefficiency. I do not mean to say that we have arrived at such a state of perfection that the law is never broken. Consider what it means: we have not only to protect the Moray Firth, but the three-mile limit all round Scotland, and when you come to think of the difficulty of locating a trespass where you cannot go by boundaries as on dry land, but only by an imaginary line, and that you have not only to do this by daylight, but also at night, it is not difficult to realise that where there is a disposition to break the law, the law should be contravened. But speaking on the whole no one could read the Reports of the Fishery Board without coming to the conclusion that the policing of the sea has been active, strenuous, and effective. The particulars as to the policing will be found on the thirtieth and following pages of the Report of the Fishery Board of the general Report. I might incidentally, here, answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for West Kerry. The vessels that are engaged in this work are, first of all, three regular Fishery cruisers; that is to say vessels which are the property of, and are at the disposal of, the Fishery Board of Scotland. Those are helped by the "Jackal," which is constantly used in the service, and by the "Cockchafer" and "Redwing." So that the Fishery Board have the continual service of three ships of their own and three ships of the Admiralty, which are engaged in this service. As a consequence there have been seventeen prosecutions during the past year against trawlers. And the way those prosecutions were handled is sufficiently shown by the fact that in every one the authorities were successful in obtaining a conviction, a statement which in my opinion reflects great credit on the police boats and the various officials in Scotland who had the conduct
  872
  of the prosecutions. In addition to those there were a great many cases in which there were no prosecutions; but in order to show how much on the alert they were there is a table in the appendix which shows the number of various boats that were detained during the year until fishing delinquencies of one sort or another were entered into. That table shows a grand total of 646 boats which were detained pending inquiries. I honestly think when these particulars are looked into it really is not the case to say that the policy has not been effective and thorough. No doubt as long as the world lasts and the fishing industry goes on as it does, complaints will be made, and I expect them to be made, but I really do not think any complaint can be made against the Fishery Board on this matter. I may say that this fleet is shortly to be strengthened by another cruiser, which it is hoped will be ready by December next. There has been a change of policy in this matter, and instead of being dependent on the Admiralty as heretofore the Fishery Board now have their own cruisers. I might say incidentally that the complaint of the hon. Members for Ireland that the trawlers descended on the Irish coast is a back-handed compliment to the policing of the waters of Scotland, because it simply means that it is very much easier to trawl off Ireland, where the policing is non-effective, than off the coast of Scotland. With regard to the details asked for by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, who was exceedingly sarcastic as to the efficiency of the Secretary for Scotland in not having given the details asked for, which were a return of all trawlers seen on forbidden ground, I may say those details could not be given because it would necessitate going over the logs of the whole of the fishing boats.
  *MR. WEIR: It was given in the previous year by the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: And I may say the hon. Gentleman has not the right to have given to him everything he asks for. The question is whether it would be right to put all the trouble and expense of time upon the officers not only of the Fishery Board, but of the Navy, of making a Return, the result of which

  873
  would not, so far as I can see, put the matter any further forward. I pass from that to what I think is the only other complaint of the hon. Member, and that is the neglect to push forward an international agreement. With regard to an international agreement, I think we are now furnished with greater knowledge and more scientific information and statistics than we enjoyed before. Her Majesty's Government have been very anxious to bring the powers together, but that is a question of very grave difficulty, and one which it is impossible for any Government to work out very rapidly. I confess that evidence is very rapidly accumulating of the decrease in the supply of fish. We have had a very halcyon speech from the hon. Member opposite, who assures us that if everybody was to eat nothing but fish it would not diminish the great supplies in the seas. That may be true, but yon might as well tell a man in the middle of a desert that there was more water in the world than he could drink. The question is, how are you to get the fish out of the sea? I cannot help coming to the conclusion that unfortunately there has been a very great diminution in the fish supply. Without going for a moment into the question as to how that is caused, that it is so is shown by the fact that in order to maintain the same catch of fish as formerly not only have the boats had to go a great deal further out to sea, but the catching power of the whole combined fleet is very much greater than it used to be. That there has been a diminution in the supply is shown by the consideration of the statistics; but if anyone doubts the statement, let him ask any fishermen on any part of the coast, and they will tell the same story in regard to the diminution of the supplies near at hand. Undoubtedly something must be done in the matter if the depopulation of the seas is to be arrested, and I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government or any other Government will have the very greatest incentive to press forward so far as they can an international agreement and cooperation in this matter. Speaking for the Fishery Board, I am sure that it will never be urged against us that we have not continued to throw our whole weight into the scale in favour of such a measure as I have indicated. In regard to the criticism of the policy of this Fishery
  874
  Board I am bound to say, after all, that I do not think I have very much to meet. There are, perhaps, one or two points upon which I ought to say a word. Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that there is an unfortunate depopulation going on in many of the smaller fishing villages. No doubt some hon. Members look upon that as another evidence of the deleterious effect of trawling. I do not wish to raise that controversy, but I would again call the attention of hon. Members to what appears in the Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, a Report which I venture to say will repay perusal by anyone, and which I think reflects the greatest credit on the Department which has issued it. In that Report the Board call attention to two facts; first of all, that this year has been a year in which there has been an enormous increase in the results of trawling as against the results of line fishing. The figures have practically been inverted. Up to the present the total patch of line fishermen —who, of course, are a great deal more numerous than the other—has always been ahead of that of the trawlers, but this is no longer the case. And more than this, the average price obtained by the trawlers is very much larger than the average price obtained by the line fishermen. Then there is the fact which is clearly brought out now, that the small fisherman is more and more going to the wall; and accordingly you have at least one very obvious economic reason for this depopulation— namely, that it really no longer pays so well to fish in small places, where, firstly, the harbours are not of sufficient size or depth to accommodate the size of the boat so as to make it profitable; and secondly, there is no ready market for the fish when it is landed. The whole tendency of the fishing trade is to employ larger and larger boats, and consequently there has been latterly a tendency to centralisation, a tendency which the Fishery Board, like other people, very much deplore in the interests of the population, but which I must confess—as will be seen from a perusal of the Report—is the inevitable result of the way in which fishing is being carried on. This matter, I think, is very cognate to what was said about harbours. Of course it would be possible in one sense to keep these fishermen at home if there were harbours that would accommo-

  875
  date larger boats; but the Fishery Board say, and I think it is a sentiment which everyone must give assent to, that—
  "It is somewhat unfortunate that the tendency to centralisation in the fishing industry is growing so rapidly. The village piers and harbours are also quite unsuitable for the large boats now in use for fishing—the depth of water being too little for entry at all states of the tide, and the shelter afforded from heavy weather quite inadequate. It is difficult to see what remedy is to be found for this state of matters, as it can hardly be expected that each little fishing community is to he provided with a deep-water harbour, and the market accommodation and railway facilities provided at the larger centres, where the revenue derived from the industry is so considerable."
  That seems a hard fact, which, however much we may regret it, we cannot get over. In regard to the harbours, I think that is really the answer to some of the complaints of the hon. Member for Ross. The amount of money which the Fishery Board has at its disposal for this purpose is limited to £3,000 this year, and that has to go, in one sense, all over Scotland. The hon. Member for Ross asks, "Why not have a harbour at Portnagurran?" A harbour there would cost £30,000, whereas the Fishery Board are only allowed £3,000 for the whole of Scotland. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire deprecated the spending: of money on the smaller harbours; but, after all, all the Fishery Board are able to do is to hold an even balance between the claims of the various portions of the coast, and it is obvious that it is only possible to make small harbours, and not large harbours of refuge like those asked for by the hon. Member for Ross. The only other topic on which I should say something is that of scientific investigation. It has been pointed out that the Fishery Board of Scotland has at least this feather in its cap, that it is really the only Government Department which is doing any work of this kind in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members will find from the Report that we have done very effective work in this direction, considering the limited means at our disposal. The hon. Member for Forfarshire said he would like the results compared with results elsewhere, but I do not see how that is possible while there are no Government Departments elsewhere doing the same work and although that may be a proper thing to do in the future, it cannot be done at present. The hon.
  876
  Member also spoke about the Moray Firth. Of course it is quite obvious, without going into the Moray Firth controversy, that for purposes of scientific investigation, what has happened there destroys the usefulness of that place as a spot where accurate scientific investigations can be carried on. Here again I can scarcely agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen that the reason why Moray Firth was closed was on account of scientific investigations. I think it will be admitted that there was a general consensus of opinion among the fishing population that immature fish were caught in the Moray Firth through the operation of trawling. The hon. Member for Ross wanted to know where the office was. I think he will find the office at Aberdeen, but I do not suppose he has looked there. I think I have now dealt with all the matters of general importance, and the only thing that remains for me to do is to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. The hon. Member for Clackmannan asked me what would be the result of a recent decision in the House of Lords. It is not usual on the estimates to deliver legal opinions, but I am perfectly willing to answer the hon. Member to the best of my ability. The case decided in the House of Lords the other day would, according to my humble judgment, strike at the hang nets or drift nets in the River Forth, and in point of fact there is no doubt that the decision of the House of Lords overturns the decision of the Court of Session some years ago, which held that these particular nets were according to law. As regards stake nets I do not think I can give the hon. Member any useful reply. They have always been, illegal in fresh water, but not illegal in the sea, and of course I do not know what particular stake nets he had in view. With regard to the questions of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry, he asked what the cruisers cost. They were built some years ago, and I do not at this moment remember the figures, but I will furnish them to the hon. Member. Then, the hon. Baronet asked out of what funds they were built. The "Jackal" was an Admiralty vessel, and, with regard to the others, for two years a sum was put down on a general estimate sufficient to build a cruiser. A few years ago this amount was taken out of the Vote and £15,000 was given out of one of the local funds.

  877
  which did not appear on the Estimates, but appeared in the Local Taxation Account, and in return for that the sea policing has been taken over by the Fishery Board. Then the hon. Baronet asked me about the herring brand. The history of the herring brand is rather a curious one. It originally had its origin in the bounty system, but although it was given as a bounty it very rapidly came about that the brand was of immense value in selling the herrings, and consequently when the bounty was abolished all the fishing trade prayed that the brand might nevertheless be continued, as it was looked upon as a certificate of value. Accordingly it was continued, and a bargain was made with the treasurer by which fees are charged for the branding operation, and any balance there is goes to the Fishery Board. Then the hon. Baronet asked was there any good result? I have already shown him that in what I have already said, and if he will read Part 1 of the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board for this year he will find full particulars on the subject. As a matter of fact the price obtained for Scotch herrings during the past year has been greater than ever before, partly owing to the very good fishing and partly owing to the failure of the herring supply in other parts of the world. I think these are all the points that have been raised.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I only wish to thank the Lord Advocate for his courtesy in answering my questions and for the interesting information he has given, which will be of considerable value to fishermen in Ireland.
  *MR. WEIRsaid he complained that the money which ought to be spent on piers and harbours was being hoarded up. In his own constituency, where there were a great number of fishermen and many fishing villages, not a single penny had been expended. He referred the Lord Advocate to the pier at Avoch, on the east coast of Ross, which was destroyed by a gale some time ago, and he asked whether steps would be taken to bring the matter before the Fishery Board for Scotland in order that the pier might be put in a proper condition for boats. The right hon. Gentleman stated that large boats were now required, and he asked that the piers should be made suitable to receive them.
  878
  Were the fishing villages of Scotland to be allowed to perish because the piers and harbours would not be rendered suitable for large boats? A Committee appointed by a Conservative Government recommended that a harbour of refuge should be established at Portnagurran (Island of Lewis), and he hoped that the Scotch Office would obtain the money to carry out that valuable recommendation. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that two of the Admiralty cruisers were not under the control of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and he should like to know why £100 a year was paid to the commander of one of these cruisers and £76 to the other. If the Scotch Fishery Board had no control over them, why should that money be paid? If they received the money from the Board the commanders should carry out the instructions of the Board; otherwise the whole thing was a fraud and a sham. The information he had asked for with reference to the number of days foreign trawlers fished in the Moray Firth could be obtained in a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes if the books had been properly kept, and yet he was informed that it would entail too much work. He was one of those who was most careful in his questions and most careful that they should be of a reasonable and not of an inquisitive character and merely intended to waste time. Surely when fair, honest, and reasonable questions of that kind were put they ought to be fairly and honestly answered.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The best answer to the hon. Member when he states that no money was spent in his constituency is that since 1883 out of £3,000 a year his constituents have had nearly £14,000.
  *MR. BUCHANAN: I moved a reduction of this Vote in the evening, and I must now take a division, because I gather from the Lord Advocate's speech that during the five years the Government have been in office no steps have been taken to secure an international agreement with reference to fisheries in the North Sea.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 185.)

  AYES.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Scott, Charles Prestwich (Leigh)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Souttar, Robinson

  Brigg, John

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Caldwell, James

  Hogan, James Francis

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Colville, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crombie, John William

  M'Crae, George

  Ure, Alexander

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wason, Eugene

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Weir, James Galloway

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Mr. Buchanan and Captain Sinclair.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

  NOES.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bethell, Commander

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Heath, James

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Henderson, Alexander

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshre)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Keswick, William

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Knowles, Lees

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowles, John

  Strauss, Arthur

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf. Univ.)

  Finch, George H.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Mon.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Mount, William George

  Wyndham, George

  Garfit, William

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Myers, William Henry

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  3. £3,221, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
  4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,743, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., in Scotland."
  *MR. WEIRsaid he found from the Report of the Registrar General that a large proportion of the deaths in the Highlands had not been certified by the medical officers. That was a state of affairs which should not be allowed to continue. The returns should show the numbers of deaths which were certified and the number of deaths which were not certified. The Department appeared to be conducted on a very slovenly method, and he did not know what the Registrar General was about to allow such a state of affairs to continue. Surely it would

  881
  be easy to add a column giving the required information. He would ask for information with reference to the sum of £750 for appropriation in aid. On page 180 there was a sum of £350 for a senior clerk, and it was stated that the senior clerk was also interim keeper of the Register of Entails, and one of the second division clerks was clerk of entails. For recording in that register, not during the general Registry Office hours, the two clerks mentioned received last year fees amounting to £35 16s. 5d. and 15s. 8d. respectively. Why was the system adopted of allowing clerks to conduct public business after general office hours? The system did not prevail in England, and was an unsound principle. He hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to give information which would enable the Vote to be taken without a division.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I would wish to say a word in support of the first proposition of my hon. friend. The point he called attention to is a very important one, and is of pressing importance in the case of Scotland. Seven years ago I obtained a Select Committee to inquire into the certification of deaths, which was presided over by the President of the Local Government Board. It drew up a number of recommendations, not one of which has been given effect to. In some of the western parts of Scotland it was found that as many as 50 per cent. of the deaths were uncertified by medical men. That is a very flagrant scandal, and it would certainly do something to impress the public mind with the importance of the subject if such facts as that were stated in the Registrar General's Report. There is nothing easier than to give full information in the matter, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will bring his influence to bear on the Registrar General to have that very important and easily-procurable information included in his Report.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: With regard to the certification of deaths, I do not know that there is anything more to be said than was stated in the Report of the Committee to which the hon. Baronet referred.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: What I ask is that we should in future have in the Report of the Registrar General a record of the number of deaths which were uncertified.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has called attention to the fact that senior clerks in the Register of Entails were paid certain fees in addition to their salaries. I fail to see anything wrong in that The hon. Member knows that in the Register House are kept the Register of Sasines, the Register of Entails, and many others, and it is found convenient that the clerks should be allowed to be paid extra for extra work. This was done under the supervision of the Registrar of Entails, and the whole work of the Register House is under the supervision of the Registrar General.
  *MR. WEIRsaid he did not object to that. What he objected to was that a public Department should be kept open after office hours, with all the attendants hanging about, in order that these two clerks might carry on work for their own profit. It seemed to him that the fees should go into the Public Treasury. He thought it unjust that these clerks, who received a salary for their own work, should take the bread out of another's mouth by doing extra work and getting paid for it in the shape of fees. The system was a thoroughly unsound one, and he was amazed that the Lord Advocate supported it. As to the registration of deaths he thought it would be the simplest thing in the world to have another column in the table showing what deaths were certified, and what were not certified. The Lord Advocate's reply was not satisfactory, since he gave no promise that this state of matters would be altered. In his own constituency there were hundreds of deaths uncertified every year, which he considered a disgrace to any civilised country. As a protest he moved that the Vote be reduced by £50.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,693, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Weir.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 186.)

  AYES.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Colville, John

  Brigg, John

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Crombie, John William

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Wason, Eugene

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Mr. Weir and Mr. Caldwell

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Steadman, William Charles

  NOES.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Purvis, Robert

  Bethell, Commander

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanson Sir Reginald

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

  Heath, James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

  Sandon, Viscount

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Keswick, William

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Knowles, Lees

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson John Grant (Yorks.)

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Strauss, Arthur

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lowles, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'd Univ

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finch, George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Ure, Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Mount, William George

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gedge, Sydney

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

  Wyndham, George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Myers, William Henry

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,508, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and for Expenses under the Vaccination Act, Infectious Disease Notification Act, Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Public Health (Scotland) Act, Poor Law (Scotland) Act, and Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899."
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONsaid that when the Vaccination Act for England
  884
  was passed two or three years ago he had asked the Lord Advocate whether it was the intention of the Government to extend the Act to Scotland. From the Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland he found that the proportion of calf lymph distributed to the public vaccinators in Scotland was small compared with infant lymph. Last year there were only 692 tubes of calf lymph for vaccination, against 2,000 tubes of infant lymph. He asked, had any steps been taken to assimilate the practice in Scotland with that in England, and why was it that calf's lymph had not been more extensively introduced into Scotland? His principal purpose, however, in rising was to draw attention to a matter connected with Quarrier's Orphan Homes at Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire. In these orphan homes there were upwards of 1,000 waifs and strays taken from the

  885
  streets and gathered from different parts of the country. The homes were supported by voluntary contributions, and conducted on a system organised by Mr. Quarrier, which had been so successful that a Departmental Committee reported that the results among the children had been infinitely more encouraging and satisfactory than amongst the children sent to industrial schools. Until comparatively recently, an agreement existed between the local authorities and Mr. Quarrier that the homes should be exempted from rates, on his undertaking at his own expense the education of the children and their treatment when sick. Some time ago an action was raised, the result of which was that it was declared to be illegal to exempt Mr. Quarrier's homes from the local rates. Mr. Quarrier then said that if he was going to pay the rates he would claim his privileges as a citizen, and demand from the educational authorities that free education for the children in his homes to which every child in Scotland was entitled, and also the privileges for the children given by the sanitation laws. He could not go into the educational part of the question on this Vote, but only the sanitary. At the time when this attitude was taken by Mr. Quarrier on the one hand, and the local authorities on the other, Mr. Quarrier insisted on getting his children educated at the public schools and treated in the public hospitals of the sanitary authority. The School Board refused to take the children in the public schools, but the sanitary authority received some of them into their hospitals. Since then things had become more acute. On the occasion of a recent epidemic of scarlet fever, a number of children in these homes were attacked, and Mr. Quarrier called upon the local authority to remove them and put them into the infectious diseases hospital. The local authority took one or two of the children and no more. Mr. Quarrier appealed to the Local Government Board, which, after some correspondence, suggested some means of getting out of the difficulty. He believed, however, that nothing had yet been done, and there was in the meantime this state of matters, that if an epidemic of scarlatina or measles broke out in the midst of this large number of children there was no machinery for removing the sick children to a place where they would cease to be a source of danger. It seemed to him that it was the duty of the Local Government Board to have regard to public health,
  886
  and to have nothing to do with the quarrel between Mr. Quarrier and the local authority. A child of Mr. Quarrier was entitled to all the attention given to any other sick child at the hands of the sanitary authority. It was not conducive to the public health that, in the case of an epidemic, any large body of children should be allowed to become a source of danger to the children of the village and of the entire country. It was the duty of the Local Government Board to amend things of that sort, and they should insist in that being done in a manner competent to them. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that a person in charge of such an institution should be compelled by law to provide accommodation for such cases, let there be legislation for that purpose, but in the meantime no such legislation existed. The law laid it clown that the sanitary authority of a district should be responsible for checking these infectious diseases, and the Local Government Board had already recognised their duty in the matter. He saw from their Report that in the case of Ayr, where no sufficient accommodation had been provided, they stepped in and insisted that it should be provided. The case had been taken to the Court of Session, where it was held that the Local Government Board was supreme in the matter, and could insist on the extension of the hospital for infectious diseases, and an hospital for that purpose was accordingly built at Ayr. In another case in connection with a combination hospital, it was laid down that accommodation must be afforded so long as there was any case requiring attention, and that when the accommodation was exhausted it was the duty of the Local Government Board to call on the local authority to provide accommodation. The accommodation at Bridge of Weir was exhausted, or threatened to be exhausted, and an appeal was made to the Local Government Board; but nothing had yet been done to increase it. These epidemics were constantly breaking out, and if another occurred it was sure to spread among the children in the homes, and they would become a source of danger to the children of the town and the surrounding districts. That was most unsatisfactory, and it was the duty of the Local Government Board, as the central authority, to insist that a state of things which constituted so grave a public danger should no longer obtain. The Local Government Board had in this

  887
  matter been negligent of its duties. It had failed to step in with a firm hand and exercise its powers for the public good, and had allowed matters to drift in a contrary direction. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £200.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £8,308 be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
  *MR. WEIRsaid that the Local Government Board were responsible for looking after the public health in Scotland. He held in his hand the annual Report of the public health officer for Ross and Cromarty, who was a member of the Medical Council in London, and well qualified to deal with the subject of public health. The report was of such a character that he felt bound to direct attention to it. It stated that there were wells on the Island of Lewis totally unprotected, that there was no hospital for infectious diseases, except at Stornoway, and that the expense had prevented the local authorities from building isolation and other hospitals. In 1899 there wore four cases of diphtheria on the Island of Lewis, against three on the mainland; 189 cases of scarlatina against ninety-seven, and eighteen cases of typhoid against fifteen, whereas the proportion of population was only as three to seven. And yet the Local Government Board would not take any steps to bring about a better state of matters. It was marvellous how any person could escape contagion on the Island of Lewis. The Report mentioned one ease in which a mother was in bed with fever, while three children were lying on the floor covered only by the rags provided by the doctor. In a village with a population of little more than 300 there were forty-one cases of typhoid fever in six months. The ratepayers could do nothing, and it was a case for the Local Government Board to take action in order to put an end to such a terrible state of affairs. It went on year after year, and yet no action was taken to relieve the deplorable condition of the people on the Island of Lewis. 30,000 people were living in a congested area in most unsanitary dwellings, and no steps whatever were taken to improve their condition. Of course it would be a very serious state of things to turn these poor people out of their homes, but still the Local Government Board ought to attempt something in order to bring about a better condition
  888
  of affairs. The Island of Harris was in a similar condition, as were also some of the islands off the coast of Inverness. The neglect displayed by the Local Government Board was not confined to the islands of Lewis and Harris, but extended right through the islands of the Outer Hebrides. He should like to know why the inspectors of the Local Government Board were Army men who were pitchforked into these positions. What did they know about diseases like typhoid? Absolutely nothing. The medical officer of health described the dwellings in one of the districts of Ross as in a shocking condition, a standing danger to the public health, and an outrage against all laws of sanitation. In that district forty-one cases of typhoid occurred in an area of a few hundred yards. There were no skilled nurses, and not an hospital nearer than Stornoway, sixteen miles distant. It was absolutely impossible for the poor people to provide suitable isolation hospitals for such cases. The medical officer of health stated that during the prevalence of the fever the children were excluded from school, to their own loss as well as to the loss of the teachers, and that the men were not allowed to attend their annual drill. He would not weary the Committee by further describing the sad state of affairs which existed in that part of Scotland. He felt it was his duty as its representative to bring the matter before the Committee, in order to show the gross neglect and indifference displayed by the Local Government Board in attending to its duties, and in administering the laws passed by Parliament in the interests of the public health. He had visited the huts of the negroes in Africa, and he could say they were better than the crofters' cottages in some parts of the Highlands. And yet the Scottish Office declined to afford these poor people any assistance except on utterly impossible conditions. He considered it was the duty of the Local Government Board to look into these matters. The Vice-President received a salary of £1,200, and the legal and medical members £1,000 each, and there were besides a number of inspectors, chiefly Army men, one of whom was paid 7s. a day out of Army funds. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that the Local Government Board paid some attention to the state of affairs described by the medical officer of health for Ross. He was a well known

  889
  and distinguished man, and a member of the General Medical Council, and his opinions were entitled to respect. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give him a satisfactory reply.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that with reference to the Quarrier Homes which had been mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division, every practical man knew the benefits they conferred, and that they enjoyed the confidence and support of the people of Scotland to a very great extent. He was glad to have an opportunity of supporting the hon. Baronet, and he would feel bound to vote with him unless a satisfactory reply were given by the Lord Advocate.
  *MR. CAMERON CORBETTsaid he should also like to support the hon. Baronet and his hon. friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs. There was a very strong feeling in the West of Scotland that a very grave injustice had been done to the institution mentioned by its being compelled to pay rates, while being deprived of the benefits derived from their expenditure, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to give a satisfactory reply.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The first question put to me by the hon. Baronet had reference to glycerinated lymph. My answer is that up to the present perhaps the advantages of glycerinated lymph in vaccination have scarcely been brought home so clearly to the people of Scotland as to the people of England, but I am glad to say that the demand for the lymph from the Local Government Board of Scotland is steadily increasing. The hon. Baronet may rest assured that the public demand for the lymph will go on growing, and we have made provision for that in the Estimates. With reference to the question of Quarrier's Homes, if I had known that it was to be raised, I would have brought down the correspondence. I must say in answer to the speech last delivered that the matter should not be confounded with the different question which will arise on the Education Vote, but I would not be in order in referring to that now. I can only deal at present with the question concerning infectious diseases. As a matter of fact, the Local Government Board have not been supine in this matter, nor have they refused the same benefits to the homes that other
  890
  people have. The Local Government Board under the powers conferred on them under Section 66 of the Public Health Act of 1897 called on the local authority to take the necessary action, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me that nothing more could have been done up to the present. The hon. Baronet says that nothing has happened since.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: This is no new matter. When there were seven or eight cases of fever the local authorities were called on to remove them, and they refused. The Local Government Board were appealed to, and they stated that nothing further had been done in the matter.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Baronet will remember the answer I gave to the question he himself put. The next stop that can be taken by the Local Government Board is to apply to the courts, and, so far as I know, that has not been done up to the present. I am sorry I am unable to give any further particulars, because I had no notice that this question would be raised on this Vote. But the hon. Baronet may be quite satisfied that the Local Government Board will mete out the same measure in this case as is meted out in all other cases. With regard to the questions of the hon. Member for Ross, he, as usual, used very strong and very general language with regard to the supineness, sluggishness, and general uselessness of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member has, however, scarcely reflected on the difficulty of providing for the accommodation to which he referred. It would be a very difficult, or rather; I should say an impossible, task. I must honestly confess I cannot under- stand what the hon. Member means when he reads extracts from the report of a medical officer of health to that effect, and it is perfectly impossible to throw on the ratepayers the cost of providing hospital accommodation such as a medical man might wish. The hon. Member seems to think that the Local Government Board have some fund at their command which would enable the Local Government Board to step in and provide hospital accommodation where the ratepayers were unable to supply it themselves. There is no such fund, and all the Local Government Board can do is to make the local authorities do their duty in such matters.
  *MR. WEIRsaid that the statements were not his, but those of a distinguished member of the medical profession.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: That does not help the argument of the hon. Member. The hon. Member also delivered some remarks on the personnel of the inspectors of the Local Government Board. He said they were mainly Army men, but I do not think that one of the present inspectors has ever been connected with the Army. The hon. Member referred in particular to one
  Original Question again proposed.
  Debate arising, and it being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  gentleman, but he is no longer an inspector of the Local Government Board, and his successor is not an Army man. The suggestion that the inspectors should be medical men is not a suggestion that would be received with favour. The Local Government Board have to perform other duties besides medical duties, and the latter are at present looked after by the medical members of the Board.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 187.)

  AYES.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Steadman, William Charles

  Brigg, John

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Caldwell, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tennant, Harold John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ure, Alexander

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, Eugene

  Crombie, John William

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

  Sir Charles Cameron and Mr. Colville.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  NOES.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s)

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gosehen, George J. (Sussex)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Myers, William Henry

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bethell, Commander

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, James

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson Alexander

  Penn, John

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. W. Lawies

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Purvis, Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Keswick, William

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sandon, Viscount

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Snarpe, William Edward T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Dickenson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sidebottom, William (Derby.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lowles, John

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

  Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Finch, George H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Strauss, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Un.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Flower, Ernest

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W.F.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wylie, Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wyndham, George

  Gedge, Sydney

  Morgan, Hn. Frederick (Mon.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Mount, William George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next. Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at ten minute after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Bray Urban District Council.
Cumberland County Council (Bridges).
Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Bray and Enniskerry Railway.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 12).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
JARROW AND HEBBURN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
ROE'S PATENT BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
CITY OF LONDON ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.

    NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
    WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

    WOODBRIDGE DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  LINCOLN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.]
    SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments.
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; further Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
    GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order). An Amendment made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendment to be received on Monday next.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LAMBETH WATER BILL.
  MID-KENT WATER BILL.

    PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY GAS BILL.
    SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL
    LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be pro-

    727
    posed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    M. Zetland,

    E. Denbigh,

    E. Mayo,

    L. Plunket,

    L. Brougham and Vaux (chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT, 1878.
  I.—Report of the Committee appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland to inquire into the public health of the City of Dublin.
  II.—Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee.

  ARMY.
  I. (Special Pensions).—Return for the year ended 31st March, 1900, of pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1170, and 1207 of the Army Pay Warrant.
  II. (Volunteers). — Proposed Regulations under the Volunteers Bill now before Parliament as to special engagements by members of Volunteer corps.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTY OF LONDON).
  Orders made by the London County Council dividing the Parliamentary Boroughs of Camberwell (Dulwich Division), Wandsworth, Hackney (North Division), and Finsbury (Central Division) into convenient polling districts. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  A Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room 1A, on Monday next, at half-past Three o'clock.
  [LATER.]
  Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board do meet the Lords' Committee in Committee Room 1A on Monday next, at. half-past Three o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.

IRISH LAND—CLAIMS OF IRISH LANDLORDS — PROPOSED ROYAL COMMISSION.
[RESOLUTION.]
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, in rising to move the resolution, that stands in my name, I cannot hide from myself that I have undertaken a great responsibility, not only because your Lordships' vote to-day will be of vital importance to the Irish landlords, but because I believe it will be of supreme moment to the interests of all who own any property of any kind whatever in the British Empire, for whether it is the rich man's estate or the poor man's one or two acres, the principle at stake is the same. The resolution I am asking your Lordships to support to-day is based on the fact that Irish landlords have been, and are being, deprived of their property for public purposes, and, contrary to the universal custom in this country when such is the case, are receiving neither compensation nor redress. But, my Lords, I have been nerved to my task by the belief inherent in me that if the people of this country once recognise the existence of an injustice they will do all in their power to have it removed. I do not propose to occupy much of your Lordships' time to-day in details of the grievances of Irish landlords, because (as is stated in the resolution before us) our claim to compensation or redress has never been seriously disputed by Parliament, and because after your Lordships heard the late Lord Inchiquin's speech in July, 1899, in which he put forward the damages done to the Irish landlords by recent legislation, your Lordships passed the following resolution—
"That the question of compensation to the Irish landlords for injury inflicted upon them by recent legislation demands the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government."
Since then, however, nothing has been done, so far as we know, by the Government to deal with this resolution; but we recognise the fact that their hands have

729
been full, and we did not, on our part, wish to interfere with their doing in South Africa that which we wish them to do also in Ireland—namely, to insist upon justice to all sections of the community. In asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the questions which are referred to in the motion which I have placed on the Paper of your Lordships' House, I think I ought at the outset to state once more, very briefly, the nature of the claim from which those questions arise. I cannot do so better than by quoting the following short paragraphs from a statement which was submitted to Her Majesty's Government by the Irish Landowners' Convention so long ago as 3rd February, 1888—
"The abstract right of Irish landowners to compensation for the loss or depreciation of their properties or rights by the legislation of recent years does not rest upon any new or exceptional grounds or principles.
"It is a right recognised and upheld in every civilised community, whenever property, or vested interests, are taken away or interfered with by the State for reasons of public policy, or for any public purpose.
"In England it has been for many generations an undisputed principle, rigorously enforced and continuously acted upon, sometimes at heavy cost to the nation, even in days when the country was comparatively poor.
"The legislature, moreover, has not only acted upon this principle in those cases in which the claim to compensation arose from the operation of great public measures or statutes, but it has always imposed a similar obligation upon public bodies, companies, or individuals to whom Parliament has, from time to time, delegated or granted powers of compulsorily acquiring or interfering with property, or vested interests, or rights of any kind.
"In such cases, moreover, compensation has frequently not been limited to the amount of loss or damage actually proved to have been inflicted at the moment, but large compensation has in many instances been paid for prospective, possible, or merely contingent damage or injury.
"The State has not only recognised this principle in its dealings with British subjects, but has in important instances both admitted and enforced a like obligation in dealing with other countries."
Such is the nature or basis of our claims, and I would next desire to remind your Lordships of some instances or occasions when this policy was acted upon or enforced. So long ago as 1705, when the terms of the Legislative Union between England and Scotland were being considered, the English Parliament agreed to pay £398,085 10s. as compensation for various losses which were regarded as likely to arise from that legislation.
730
Again, in 1746, it was decided to abolish certain local Courts, known as exceptional hereditary jurisdictions, in Scotland, and a sum of about £150,000 was paid to the owners of these jurisdictions as compensation for the loss of their rights and emoluments. There was also the case of the revenues and royalties acquired by the State in the Isle of Man from the Duke and Duchess of Athol. This case is remarkable from the fact that it recognised the principle of paying compensation for injury arising from past legislation, when the injury proved to be greater than was expected when the legislation was passed. In 1765, £70,000 was paid to the Duke and Duchess, with an annuity of £2,000 per annum. Thirty-five years afterwards it was shown that the compensation was insufficient, and a further grant was made, which was subsequently converted into a perpetual annuity of £3,000. Finally, in 1829, the Duke was paid £417,144 for certain rights in and over the soil which had not been included in the previous transactions. We find also that, in 1799, the Parliament of Ireland voted £1,260,000 as compensation to the borough proprietors, when their rights were taken away. Then in 1833 the Imperial Parliament granted 20 millions sterling as compensation to the West Indian slave-owners, although it had been settled law in England for more than fifty years previously that property in man was unknown to our Constitution. The next instance of large compensation paid by the State to persons injuriously affected by legislation was probably the Irish Church Act of 1869, under which £11,616,518 was paid to individuals whose position or interests were adversely affected. Later on we had the case of abolition of purchase in the Army in 1871, when many millions of money were paid for depriving people of benefits which they had secured by a process which had actually been declared to be penal by statute. To these larger cases we have to add almost countless statutes under which power has been granted, sometimes to the State, sometimes to public or private companies, to take away the properties of individuals or to encroach upon their rights in pursuance of some public policy, or in the interest of some section of the community; but in no case that I know of has this been done without securing that compensation should be paid on a liberal scale to

731
everyone who had to surrender or suffer anything, in property or rights, for the purposes of the legislation in question. I may, therefore, be asked, Why did not Parliament insert provisions in the Land Act of 1881, providing that the landlords should be compensated for any injury that might accrue to them from its operation? My reply is that it was asserted by Mr. Gladstone, and by the leading Members of his Government in both Houses of Parliament, that their Bill would benefit the Irish landlords instead of injuring them. For instance, on 25th April, 1881,* the late Mr. W. E. Forster, at that time Chief Secretary for Ireland, said—
"I therefore am not surprised to hear a claim made for compensation. But the English law in the matter depends upon whether damage can be proved, and my firm belief is that no damage can be proved; on the other hand, that if the landlord were compensated, you would compensate him for conferring on him a benefit."
Later on, on 22nd July, Mr. Forster again said—
"I think this Bill will be justified by what will happen, and I think the final result of the measure, within a few years, will be that the landowners of Ireland, small and large, will be better off than they are at this moment."
Again, on 1st August, 1881, Lord Carlingford said in this House—
"My Lords, I maintain that the provisions of this Bill will cause the landlords no money loss whatsoever."
And, on the 11th August, Lord O'Hagan said that—
"Another objection entertained by opponents of the Bill was that it would subject the landlords to certain losses. But he believed that if it were administered conscientiously and honestly no material injury would be done to the landlords."
But, my Lords, while the Government of 1881 maintained that their Bill would be mo injury to the landlords, they were equally explicit in their assurances that if injury were the result, compensation must be made. For instance, on the Second Beading of the Bill, on 16th May, Mr. Gladstone said—
"I wish to refer to two words which we have heard often repeated in this debate. The first word is 'confiscation,' and the second word is 'compensation.' They are words that are, and ought to be, in close association together; for I certainly should be very slow to deny that where confiscation could be proved, compensation ought to follow."
* The proceedings on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, of 1881, are reported in The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vols. cclx.—cclxv.
732
Again, on 22nd July, Mr. Gladstone used these remarkable words —
"In doing our duty to the several classes in Ireland who are immediately affected by the Bill, we shall not forget the duty we owe to the nation at large. If these classes, either or both of them, have a just claim to compensation in consequence of the manner in which, their interests will be affected by this Bill, we are bound as a Parliament to give it to them. … If it can be shown, on clear and definite experience at the present time, that there is a probability, or if after-experience should prove that in fact ruin and heavy loss is likely to he, or has been, brought upon any class in Ireland by the direct effect of this legislation, that is a question which we ought to look very directly in the face."
My Lords, I need not remind your Lordships that this line was taken, and these assurances were given, in the presence of this Imperial Parliament, and I should feel that I was offering almost an affront to both Houses if I appeared to entertain a moment's doubt that Parliament, in passing the Land Bill of 1881, identified itself in the fullest degree with the assurances thus given respecting it. If such assurances had been given respecting a measure affecting some class in one of our colonies or dependencies, would there be a moment's hesitation in recognising that pledges had been given which the English nation and the Imperial Parliament were in honour bound to redeem? If so, will it be contended that the obligation is less binding because it was given respecting the property and interests of a class who constitute no mean section of the population of the United Kingdom, and who at every period of their history have been remarkable for their loyalty and devotion to the people of England? My Lords, I turn next to the losses which we say have been inflicted upon us, and to the forms of compensation or redress which we have been demanding; both of which we now ask Her Majesty's Government to refer to examination by a Royal Commission. Our losses were accurately summarised by the late Lord Inchiquin, in this House, on the 18th July, 1899,* when he said that compensation was due to the Irish landlords in the following respects—
"(1) For the injury inflicted on them by being deprived of the right of resumption, and by the transfer from the landlord to the tenant of the right to the occupation of the soil;
"(2) By the practical abolition of free contract in the letting of land;
"(3) By the landlords being deprived of the right of obtaining in the open market the best
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxiv., page 1129.

733
rent for their property, which solvent tenants would willingly pay;
"(4) By the serious interference and diminution of the landlords' rights and income, by the arbitrary fixing of so-called fair rents;
"(5) By the reduction of rents below anything that could be justified by economic causes;
"(6) By the heavy legal expenses periodically entailed upon the landlords by the process of fixing their rents judicially;
"(7) By the impediments which have been placed in the way of their obtaining even the rent which the State still allows them, while, at the same time, payment in full is enforced for tithe rent-charge and all other State charges; and,
"(8) Generally, by the depreciation of the value of their property by legislation, as well as the deprivation of many valuable proprietary rights, the proper exercise of which was beneficial, not only to the landlords, but also to their tenants and to the community at large."
I ask your Lordships—do you believe there is one landowner in England who could fairly make these complaints? Have English landlords lost the right of resumption of their holdings? Has their land been transferred to their tenants for public purposes without compensation? Have they been deprived of the right to let their farms for the best rent they can get? Are their rents fixed below what could be explained by economic causes, and are they forced to let them at one-third below competition rents? Let me quote one or two instances of the grievance I refer to, about rents being reduced below competition value. Judge Bowley's evidence before Mr. Morley's Committee proves this. He said—
"I would say that the fair rent of a holding, as a rule, would be, roughly, about two-thirds of the competition rent.—(Q.) Two-thirds of the competition rent? Roughly. In many cases the fair rents would be, of course, less than two-thirds, but, generally speaking, I would take it in that way."
I venture to ask what sort of rents would landlords in England receive if Parliament compelled them to accept rents from which the element of competition was explicitly and wholly excluded? Then, again, it is said, the fact that the tenants have done most of the improvements in Ireland justifies lower rents than would otherwise be fair, but the bottom is knocked out of that argument by the fact that rents have been reduced just as much, if not, indeed, more, in cases where it is not disputed that the improvements were done by the landlords. I could easily prove that landlords have to pay to get back possession of their own lands when no improvements have been claimed by the
734
tenant, but I think I have said enough to show that it is not true to assert that the Irish landlords are no worse off than the English landlords. If the case of the English landlords is so similar to that of the Irish landlords, why are English farmers left without the advantages given to the Irish farmers, and why do not Irish landlords get compensation for the loss of their properties and rights as English landlords do? Mr. Gladstone, speaking on February 15th, on the Irish Land Act of 1870,* laid it down that
"Inasmuch as perpetuity of tenure on the part of the occupier is virtually expropriation of the landlord, and as a mere re-adjustment of rent according to the price of produce can by no means dispose of all contingencies the future may produce in his favour, compensation would have to be paid to the landlord for the rights of which he would be deprived."
Was not this an admission that the virtual, indeed the actual, expropriation caused by the Act of 1881 is a ground for compensation, unless, indeed, it can be shown that the landlords have derived benefits from that Act which, in themselves, are tantamount to compensation? If anyone is bold enough to assert this, I would remind him that on 22nd July, 1881, Mr. Gladstone also said —
"I quite agree that if Parliament were to pass a law providing that rents in Ireland should be universally reduced to Griffiths' valuation, that would be a fair case for compensation."
Now, during the ten years immediately following the passing of the Act of 1881, the Irish Land Commission published yearly the figures which enabled the public to see how the reduced rents stood with reference to Griffiths' valuation, and it appears that during the period ended 22nd August, 1891, the number of rents fixed by sub-commissioners was 145,332; the old rents in these cases amounted to £3,425,843; Griffiths' valuation of the holdings amounted to £2,583,038; and the rents were reduced by the sub-commissioners to £2,661,322. In other words, the old rents were, in the aggregate, 33 per cent. above Griffiths' valuation, while the rents fixed by the sub-commissioners were only 3 percent. above the valuation. Manifestly, therefore, the administration of the Act had produced a state of things which Mr. Gladstone had deliberately selected as a test, the occurrence of which would entitle the landlords to compensation.
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Third. Series], Vol. cxcix., page 350.

735
Do the Government dispute this? Mr. Arthur Balfour, speaking during the debate on the Act of 1881, said—
"Free sale must either end in rack-renting, or in robbery."
It has ended in both. What I have stated proves that the Irish landlords' property has been taken for public purposes, and that, contrary to custom, they have received no compensation for it, and this though leading statesmen of both parties considered them entitled to it. The justice of compensation or redress not having been disputed, it remains only a question of how our claim is to be dealt with, and it is to arrive at the solution of this question, and to put an end to the state of affairs described by the Times, when the Fry Commission was asked for, but which applies just as much to-day—namely, as "altogether without a parallel in any country, civilised or uncivilised" —that we ask to-day for a Royal Commission as stated in my resolution. As regards the forms or methods by which compensation might be made, there seems to be no reason why the usual practice in such cases should not be followed, and the compensation be paid in money. The only reason ever alleged against this course seems to have been that the amount would probably be very large. What does this imply? Does it not mean that the injury and injustice done have been immense? if so, is there not all the greater reason for our demand that it should be made the subject of inquiry at the hands of a competent Commission? But while we can see no reason why we should not receive compensation in the usual form of payment in money, we have indicated various other forms in which compensation or redress might be, to some extent (and even to a large extent) granted without making any payments out of the Imperial Exchequer involving expense or loss to the general taxpayer. These proposals have long ago been submitted to Her Majesty's Government, and I do not propose to deal with them at any length on the present occasion, because we rather advocate that they should now be made the subject of inquiry and report by a Royal Commission, with the object of giving effect to the resolution adopted by this House about a year ago. I may, however, very shortly state their general character. First of all, we urge that the reforms
736
recommended by the Fry Commission should receive a fair trial, in the hope that improved methods of administering the Acts would stem the daily and ever-increasing tide of confiscation. Then we ask that the State should endeavour to lighten the burden and facilitate the redemption of land charges, both private and public, by State loans to pay off well-secured mortgages; by legislation to encourage and assist the formation of mortgage debenture institutions; by an Act to enable owners and incumbrancers to convert any existing mortgage or charge into bonds or land debentures; by granting the most favourable terms possible for the purchase of State charges (such as tithe rent-charge, Crown rents, quit rents, etc.) and for the repayment of Board of Works loans; by reforms of procedure and amendments of the law under the Land Purchase Acts, with the object of decreasing as much as possible the loss of income to the landlord in sales under those Acts, and thereby encouraging and promoting such sales; and, lastly (but by no means the least in importance), by enabling titles to be cleared and registered at the expense of the State in the first instance, the State being afterwards recouped by fees on future transactions. I would like to point out that some of these proposals might be extended to the entire United Kingdom, with great public advantage, and much benefit to the landed classes. I refer especially to the formation of land debenture institutions, and the clearing and registering of titles. I will not add any further evidence of the justice of our demand, but with your Lordships' permission I should like to deal with one or two arguments I have heard used when the question of the Irish Land Acts has been under discussion. The argument has been used, that when the Land Act of 1881 was passed it was strongly opposed by many of the leading members of the present Government, but that, it having been passed, all they can do is to accept the fact. In this argument is omitted one of the chief facts which occurred when the Act of 1881 was passed—namely, the distinct assertion of the Prime Minister of England that, if a certain thing happened, Parliament would be bound to give us compensation. Again, what I ask the Government to-day is, will they assert

737
that Parliament is not bound in equity to redeem the pledges given to Irish landlords in the past? Parliament, I venture to assert, was never intended or created to despoil one section of the community for the benefit of another. On the contrary, we look to their endeavours to assure to the people of this Empire truth and justice for all generations. But look at the state of the land laws in Ireland to-day. The landlords are being ruined; the tenants are growing more dissatisfied every day that their reductions are not bigger; and what can be expected as a result but a growing sense of insecurity of capital—about the most evil and poisonous plant that could be grown in Ireland, which, being a poor country, wants all the capital possible. But, my Lords, the danger of this state of things being allowed to continue in Ireland is not confined to that country. If once it is finally established that in any part of Great Britain you can take property for any purpose, without compensation, where is the security for any man's property? Where, indeed, is the security for property of any kind, if Socialism is to be the watchword of a Unionist party? It is against the final fixing of this Socialistic precedent that I ask your Lordships to pass this resolution to - day. Another danger exists while this inequity exists, namely, that it is becoming daily more evident that Parliament either will not, or cannot, remedy this awful injustice in Ireland. We were assured before the last general election that no Irish Parliament was needed because the British Parliament could amend any just Irish grievance. It is true that the Government appointed the Fry Commission to make a very strictly limited inquiry into the process in operation under the Land Act of 1881, but though that body was presided over by one of the ablest English judges, and came to a unanimous decision, most of its recommendations remain to-day a dead letter, though over two years and a half have passed since their Report was issued, and though it referred very distinctly
"to the great evil wrought by that unrest which is generated by the periodical settlement of rents."
If once it is proved that an English Parliament cannot amend the just grievances of Ireland, one of the chief arguments used at the last general election
738
goes by the board. It may be asked why, if we know that damage has been done, do not we state our claim specifically? The answer is, just as any one of your Lordships would know that damage had been done to your interests if, say, a railway was run opposite your hall-door, or through your park, still you might not be able to specify the amount of damage, or what compensation or redress you required, till you had received a professional valuer's report. The evils we complain of are not of the past. They are occurring daily, and, unless immediately stopped, wholesale ruin of Irish landowners stares them in the face. We do not ask that anything should be taken from the tenants. We do ask for equality of treatment for landlord and tenant. We say that if you undermine the security of property in land in Ireland you will prevent British capital being used there, as has already been done. We say that the Land Acts satisfy no one. They have not satisfied the tenants. Witness the Irish League started in county Mayo, which is now doing all it can to ruin the larger farmers by the same methods employed in former years to ruin the landlords by the Irish Land League. We maintain that the existing unrest on account of the Irish Land Acts will go on growing till you will have a task before you which may well appal the stoutest heart. And last, but not least, we contend that it is against public policy for such a glaring mass of injustice to be allowed to continue for another day in our midst. The Prime Minister has condemned, and rightly, the view that the operations in South Africa were undertaken not because of the grievances of the Uitlanders, but because there are gold mines there. This country has spent thousands of lives and millions of money to right their grievances. Why not, then, remedy the grievances of loyal Irishmen, instead of handing over them and their property to some of the bitterest foes this country has? Are you going to say to the loyal Irishmen who have fought in South Africa when they get back, to such of them as survive the horrors and hardships they have so nobly and willingly encountered for you, "You have fought to the death in order to right the wrongs of the Uitlanders, but do not dare to ask redress of your own wrongs. If you do you will be very ill-advised." Is

739
this what you are going to say to them? If it is, I, for one, do not believe the English nation will back you up. My Lords, the issue is a simple one, though, as I have said, of the deepest moment to the whole Empire—are you or are you not going to establish the precedent that a Government may take away a man's property from him without compensation? If you are going to establish this as a precedent, then you are sapping the very foundations of the Empire's prosperity. You are making a fatal mistake, which can never be rectified; and why? Because you have not sufficient faith in the inherent nobility of the British people to say, "We will right the wrongs of these our fellow-citizens, even if it should cost us something to do it."
Moved to resolve, That as the claim of Irish landlords to compensation or redress from the State has been on several recent occasions placed before Parliament, and as its justice has never been, seriously disputed, a Royal Commission be immediately appointed to consider and report (inter alia)—

1. As to the nature and extent of the injury which Irish landowners have suffered by legislation since 1881; and

2. As to the best means of affording compensation or redress for the injury so inflicted upon them, having regard to the assurances given in Parliament in and since 1881 by members of successive Governments, or of the Legislature, that if Irish landowners were found to have suffered loss or injury from Irish land legislation it would be the duty of Parliament to. compensate them.

—(The Viscount Templetown.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the Prime Minister has asked me, perhaps as a retribution for the part I took in passing the Act of 1881, to reply on behalf of the Government to the resolution moved by the noble Lord. In one respect, at all events, perhaps in many others, the selection is an unfortunate one; for, though any one of my colleagues would have given substantially the same answer that I shall have to give, both the Prime Minister himself and some of my colleagues could at least have given the
740
noble Lord and his friends the satisfaction of repeating some of those criticisms and denunciations of the Act of 1881 which they have uttered on so many occasions, and which might have given some comfort to the noble Lord, whereas I, at least, am debarred from giving him even that moderate amount of satisfaction, because, while I am bound to admit that the Act of 1881 has not done all that was expected of it in improving and settling the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, while I admit that it may have pressed harder on Irish landlords than I, at least, ever anticipated that it would, while I am bound to admit that the absence of any definition of the principles on which fair rents ought to be fixed has left room for decisions many of which seem to be unaccountable and some of which may appear to be unjust, while I am bound to admit that the Land Act has many blots and imperfections, I. am still prepared to maintain that, looking to the circumstances which at the time prevailed in Ireland, both justice and policy alike demanded some legislation in this direction, and even now I am not prepared to admit that I repent of the part I took in passing that Act. I had some difficulty in understanding what meaning was to be attached to the word "redress" which the noble Lord uses in his resolution. I rather gather from some of his concluding remarks that the word is intended to cover possible alterations which might be made in the Land Acts themselves, or in the procedure under them, such as were the subject of inquiry by the Fry Commission. That Commission was appointed two or three years ago to consider the procedure, the practice, and the methods of valuation, rent fixing, and land purchase tribunals. As I see that attention is going to be called to the Report of that Commission on Monday next, I think that it may be better that. I should not attempt on this occasion to anticipate that discussion. I shall confine the observations I have to make entirely to the question of compensation. Well, my Lords, I have to state on the part of the Government that we are unable to accept this resolution, for two reasons, In the first place, the resolution asks us to accept a principle of compensation wider and more absolute in form than has ever been admitted by any Government, as far as I know, in the past, and in a form in which we certainly are not pre-

741
pared to admit the principle. In the next place it asked for the appointment of a Royal Commission which would be charged with an inquiry into subjects in regard to which, in our opinion, no Commission is competent to form a judgment or to advise cither the Government or Parliament. It is not possible to assert the principle of compensation in a wider, broader, or more absolute manner than is contained in this resolution. I have no desire to attribute to the Irish landlords in general the desire to make unreasonable demands, and I think that probably most of them would admit that the warning which was given to them three years ago by the Prime Minister was not an unreasonable one, when he advised them not to make a claim for compensation in the shape of money from the English Exchequer. The noble Lord who moved this resolution did not appear to entirely accept that advice, because he told us he did not see why compensation should not be given in money, which, of course, must come direct from the English Exchequer. Although the noble Lord spoke in the name of the Landlords' Convention, he has, perhaps, in that respect, not represented the opinion of the whole of the Irish landlords. An Irish landlord, writing apparently with some authority on the subject, in a pamphlet called "The Case of the Irish Landlords," says of this warning given by the Prime Minister—
"All that his second condition can reasonably be taken to mean is a warning that admissions that the landlords have been hardly treated by, and under, the Land Acts were not to be taken as invitations to the Duke of Abercorn (for example) to draw up a statement to the effect that the value of his Irish property in 1870 was (say) £895,000, and that by 1898 it was reduced to £537,000, and to demand a cheque for £358,000 balance due, and so on to all other landlords in turn. Some Irish landlords suffer from strange delusions, and, perhaps, a warning of this kind is not misplaced."
It does not seem to have been misplaced in the case of the noble Lord who moved this resolution. The writer of the pamphlet adds—
"The operation of the Land Acts has been so variable, capricious, and obscure that no landlord can make a statement of the amount he has lost in pounds, shillings, and pence that can hold water."
The terms of the resolution which the noble Lord has moved would cover even a demand for a certain sum in damages
742
for injuries sustained, and if a Commission were appointed under this resolution they would have to endeavour to make an inquiry into the actual amount of loss sustained by the Irish landlords, collectively and individually. I conceive that there is no precedent in which Parliament has accepted in this broad manner the principle of compensation for loss sustained in consequence of legislation, except in cases where the consequences were foreseen, and were capable of being provided for either in the legislation itself or in simultaneous legislation. The provision for compensating the slave-owners was, I believe, contained in the Act itself, and simultaneously with the Act for the abolition of the Corn Laws Sir Robert Peel brought forward a proposal to transfer from the land to the Exchequer the burden of certain rates as compensation for the injury which it was anticipated the landed interest would suffer from that measure. There are numerous instances in which this principle might have been put forward and might have been accepted by Parliament. In the case of the Ground Game Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act certain rights and privileges were transferred from the English landlords to their tenants. Some of those rights and privileges possessed pecuniary value, but no proposal was ever made to compensate the landlords for the rights of which they were deprived. Railway shareholders might put forward a claim for compensation for the costly improvements which have been imposed upon them by Railway Regulation Acts for the protection or convenience of the public or of their own servants, and which have been imposed upon them since the dates at which their original Acts were granted. Manufacturers and owners of mines might make a similar claim in respect of the restrictions on hours of labour and the expensive precautions which they are now compelled by law to make in the interest of the health and safety of their workmen, and which in many cases have largely reduced their profits. No one has ever suggested a claim for compensation in these cases. Employers generally might raise a claim for compensation in respect of the loss which they have incurred through the Compensation to Workmen Act, but no one has suggested that the Exchequer

743
should be made liable for the insurance that the employers may be compelled to make in order to protect themselves against that liability. It is quite clear that claims of this character might be raised in future if Parliament, in its wisdom, should ever think fit to make any alteration in the law relating to licenses and the sale of intoxicating liquors in such a manner as might have the effect of reducing the profits of that great trade. These instances might be indefinitely multiplied, but I have mentioned enough to show that the principle which we are asked in this resolution to sanction is one of a very far-reaching and very dangerous character. Some reference has been made to pledges which are said to have been given by Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues in 1881, Nothing has been brought forward by the noble Lord, and I have found nothing in the statements which have been put forward on behalf of the Irish Landowners' Convention, which is more definite than the statement of Mr. Gladstone, which the noble Lord has quoted, that if loss could be proved as a direct consequence of the Act, that would be a question which Parliament would be bound to look very directly in the face. But it is easy to find other passages, which it has not been found desirable to quote, in which Mr. Gladstone dealt directly with the question of compensation, and in which, while he admitted that compensation would be due if confiscation could be proved to be contained in the Act, he always denied that the principle of confiscation was to be found in the Act, and, therefore, he refused to include any principle of compensation in the Act. I submit that Parliament cannot be bound, and ought not in the interest of the taxpayers of this country to hold themselves bound, by anything which may have been said in the course of a debate of a vague character, such as these declarations, upon matters which might have been made the subject of definite enactment, or, at all events, might have taken the shape of a definite proposal made to Parliament. I do not recollect whether the question of compensation was ever directly raised by way of Amendment during the debates on the Act of 1881, but for this purpose it does not much matter whether it was or not. If it was not so raised it must have been because the Irish landowners and their friends did not
744
see in what way a reasonable proposal on the subject which Parliament would be likely to accept could be made; and if it was raised by Amendment that Amendment certainly must have been rejected by Parliament, and by the only Parliament which had the whole case before it and was entitled to enact that a price should be paid by the British taxpayer for this legislation. The noble Lord first proposes that a Commission should examine into the extent of the injury suffered by Irish landowners in consequence of the legislation of 1881. Well, my Lords, it is admitted by some of these landlords, at all events, that it would be impossible for them to make a statement of the loss they had incurred through that Act that would hold water, and there are elements on the other side which would have to be taken into account and which it would be impossible to calculate. It seems to be assumed that, but for the Land Act, there would have been no loss to the landlords; but since 1881 rents have been reduced in England no less than they have been reduced in Ireland. I know that it is said that the agricultural conditions of England and Ireland differ very widely, and that the economical causes which have led to the reduction of rents in England have not affected Ireland in the same way. It was not held that so great a difference existed between the agricultural conditions of England and Ireland as to cause Ireland to be excluded from the compensation which was given in 1846 by Sir Robert Peel to the agricultural interest, for one of his proposals was that, concurrently with the repeal of the Corn Laws, the whole, instead of half, of the cost of the constabulary should be paid out of the Exchequer, the express object being to give to Irish landlords some compensation for the loss that it was contemplated would fall upon them in consequence of the repeal of the Corn Laws. It is not possible to contend that the economical causes which have led to reductions of rent in England have not had a similar effect in Ireland. I am unwilling to trouble your Lordships with my own experiences, but it certainly con-firms the opinion I hold, that in any circumstances there must have been a considerable reduction in rents in Ireland. I have, as many of your Lordships know,

745
a large estate in Ireland, and, as your Lordships probably do not know, I am the owner of a small estate in Somersetshire. Somersetshire is not one of the counties in England chiefly affected by low prices, for it is not a wheat growing county; but comparing the three years from 1878 to 1880 and 1895 to 1897, I find that, while the reduction in rent on one of the Irish estates has been 16 per cent. the reduction on the English estate has been 35 per cent. I admit there may be peculiar circumstances in that, and that that may not be universally the case, but still it cannot possibly be denied that in estimating the loss which has been incurred by Irish landlords the economical causes which brought about the reduction of rents in England must be taken into consideration. That is one element in the estimate which it is almost impossible to calculate. There is another still more difficult to calculate, and that is, what would Irish rents have been worth in 1881, since 1881, and now, but for the Irish land legislation? Noble Lords have a very lively recollection of the Land Act of 1881, but they seem to have forgotten the agitation which preceded it. They have forgotten the resistance, which had already come into existence, against the payment of any rent at all, and they have forgotten the temper in which this resistance to the payment of rent was received in this country. It is easy enough now to say it was a wicked and unscrupulous agitation, raised wholly for political purposes, and without any just cause, and that it was the duty of the then Government to have enforced the law and the rights of the landlords; but no Government could do more than what Parliament, and the people to whom Parliament is responsible, give it the means of doing, and, looking back at the circumstances of those times and the temper which prevailed in Parliament and in the country, I hold it would have been absolutely impossible for the then Government or for any Government to have enforced the rights of the Irish landlords under penalty of eviction under an unreformed land law. Then there are elements in this estimate which the noble Lord would direct the Commission to make, which are impossible of calculation. The noble Lord has made some alteration in the terms of his resolution since he first placed it on the Paper. He
746
has very wisely eliminated the second of his proposed instructions directing the Commission to inquire into the pledge which had been given by various statesmen on the subject. I think he can hardly have seriously contemplated that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into what authority ought to be attached to the speeches of either the promoters or opponents of that measure upon matters which might have found expression, not in speeches alone, but in definite legislative proposals. The last instruction the noble Lord would give to the Commission relates to the best means of giving compensation. Although, for reasons which I have endeavoured to state, I conceive that anything in the nature of direct compensation is an impossibility, and although I think that the Irish landlords prejudice their case by putting forward a demand which may be capable of being understood in that sense, yet I am perfectly willing to admit that the case of the Irish landlords is a hard one. There can be no doubt, from the speeches of Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues, that he and they did not anticipate that the Land Act would prove to be an injury to the landlords, they rather anticipated that it would prove a benefit; but it cannot be maintained that that anticipation has been realised. Neither can it be asserted, I think, that if the Act has led to greater reductions of rent than were anticipated, if it has deprived the landlords of a larger proportion of the rights of property than the framers of the Act intended, through the decisions of the courts, these consequences have been owing in any degree to the fact that investigation has proved that the Irish landlords were a more exacting or a more rapacious body, as a whole, than they have been supposed to be. It cannot be denied that the Act has pressed more hardly upon them than was either desired or anticipated. But, when I make this admission, I cannot do more than again repeat the advice which was given to the Irish landlords by the Prime Minister three years ago, when he advised them to bring forward such proposals for the alleviation of their position as they soberly thought could reasonably be adopted, and as by the moderation of their desires and arguments, as well as by the strength of the reasons they put forward, would be commended to the impartial and sym-

747
pathetic acceptance of English statesmen. It is in this direction and in this direction only, that any alleviation of the hardships of the Irish landlords can be found. We have endeavoured to do something in this direction. We have endeavoured to facilitate, in the interest of landlords as well as of tenants, the progress of land purchase. Up to March, 1897, advances from the Treasury for this purpose had been made at the rate of about £500,000 a year. In the next year they amounted to £800,000, and in the two last completed years they have amounted to £1,800,000 in each year, and I am informed the demand is somewhat on the increase. We have not waited for the Irish landlords themselves to make proposals. In connection with the Local Government Act, passed two years ago, the Government itself proposed and carried a provision which relieved them of half the poor rate, involving an expense of £316,000 a year. There is a measure now before Parliament — the Tithe Kent-charge Bill—which Irish landlords have frequently asked for, and which will give them some further relief of the same character. I do not say that these measures have given, or are capable of giving, the full measure of compensation to which they may think themselves entitled, but I do say that these measures show on the part of the Government a sympathetic spirit towards a class and an interest which we believe to be in an unfortunate and difficult position. And I say, further, that it is only through measures such as these, through measures which can be recommended and sup ported on grounds of public policy, and not only as instalments of compensation, that any further relief of the landlord's position can be found. I further say that some such measures of relief as those which have been enumerated by the noble Lord may be found in subsequent years to be worthy of consideration, but such measures can only be proposed or accepted by the Government on its own responsibility to Parliament, and I cannot conceive how the adoption of such measures would be facilitated by the appointment of a Commission charged with duties so difficult, if not impossible, as those suggested by the noble lord. For these reasons the Government have to resist the resolution. One word I must say in conclusion. The noble Lord asserted in his speech, and asserts in his resolu-
748
tion also, that the justice of these claims. has never been denied.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Never been seriously disputed.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Never been seriously disputed. Well, as the noble Lord reminded us, a similar claim was put forward in a resolution which was moved by Lord Inchiquin last year. It is quite true that that resolution was carried by a small majority in a not very large House, but it was opposed by every one of Her Majesty's present and late advisers who sit in this House. I do not know how, under such circumstances, the noble Lord can ask us to assert that the justice of these claims has never been seriously disputed. For the reasons. I have given, the Government feel compelled to resist the resolution.
*LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I deeply regret to hear the answer which, the noble Duke has given on behalf of the Government. Our chief reason for asking for a Royal Commission is that though we have repeatedly brought forward the case of the Irish landlords, and stated in,. I fear, often wearisome detail our several grounds of complaint and the nature and extent of our injuries, we have never been able to obtain any exhaustive examination of these points. The impression, therefore, is naturally left on the minds of many Members of this House and the public that we have overstated our case, and that, although we may have something to complain of, we are not worthy of much consideration. We have only been able to get from Her Majesty's Government an acknowledgment that our case is a hard one, and an assurance that we have their sympathy. The impression to which I have referred will no doubt be strengthened by the comparison which I was surprised to hear made by the noble Duke between the reductions of rent. in Ireland and in England. That comparison is a plausible one, but I think we can show that it is unsound, especially in the case of the reductions of second-term rents which are now being made to an alarming extent in Ireland. In England rent is fixed by what a solvent farmer who knows his business chooses to give, and therefore depends on the prices of agricultural produce and the cost of production.

749
In Ireland the element of competition is entirely excluded, while the high price paid for tenant right shows that tenants would be ready to pay a higher rent than the judicial one. How rents in Ireland are fixed it is impossible to exactly ascertain, for no definition of what constitutes a fair rent has ever been furnished to the men who have been appointed to fix that rent. We know that what the Fry Commission called popular evidence, namely, the rent paid for land in the vicinity, long and punctual payment of a real rent, and so forth, is not admitted, and we therefore must assume that if the rent depends upon anything more than caprice it is upon what is called technical evidence, namely, the opinions of experts as to the capabilities of a farm, prices of agricultural produce, and cost of production. The question of improvements may be entirely eliminated, because an allowance was made for improvements on the first occasion when the rents were fixed. The cost of production is held by the Fry Report to be about the same, as, although labour is higher, the price of agricultural requisites, seeds, manures, etc., has decreased; and therefore these sweeping reductions which are taking place in second-term rents must depend on the fall in agricultural produce. I have in my hand a Report prepared by probably the greatest living authority in Ireland, Mr. Barnes, in which he calculates that the fall in the average gross profits of agricultural produce, stock and crops combined, for the whole of Ireland, since the first five years from 1881 to 1885, compared with the years from 1895 to the present year, is under 5 per cent.—4¾ per cent. is the exact figure. But the rents have been reduced in the last period on an average of 24¾ per cent. The Fry Commission laid it down that if there was a reduction of values of 20 per cent., the reduction in rent ought to be 33⅓ per cent. If we take that standard, the reduction of rents to which I have referred, instead of being 24¾ per cent., ought to have been under 8 per cent. Therefore rents have been reduced, according to this table, treble as much as they ought to have been. I think that disposes of the comparison between English and Irish rents. But there is another serious grievance which Irish landlords have which was hardly mentioned by the noble Duke, and which has no parallel in England. By the Act
750
of 1881, supplemented by the Act of 1896, the selling value of Irish property has been reduced from about twenty-three years purchase of the old rent to about seventeen years purchase of the reduced rents. That has nothing to do with the reductions of rent or the fall in agricultural produce. There is no reason why the number of years purchase should have been varied. It means that a sum of over 25 per cent. of the fee simple value of the property has been taken from the landlord and transferred to the sitting tenant. It is on such losses as these that we base our claim for compensation. We do not ask for direct money compensation. We have taken the warning addressed to us by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister. But we ask for some measure of relief. The noble Duke stated that there was no precedent for granting compensation unless it had been taken into account at the time the legislation was passed which rendered the claim for compensation eventually necessary. Well, I would ask whether there was any precedent for the Act of 1881, but in any case it seems hard that, because the framers of that Act were deficient in foresight, and could not see what the consequences of the measure would be, the people who have suffered from its operations should continue to suffer. We wish to have the various schemes for relief to landlords which were mentioned by my noble friend who moved this motion, especially as some of them are of a highly technical character, referred to a Royal Commission for examination, land we are deeply disappointed at finding this Commission refused by Her Majesty's Government. I wish the House would consider the position of landlords in Ireland at the present time. By landlords I do not necessarily mean large landlords or wealthy men. There are many small and struggling landlords who are now being reduced to penury by these excessive reductions of rent, which are not justified by economic causes. There is a great probability that in another fifteen years there will be still further reductions. We hold that a grievous wrong has been done to us, unintentionally we freely admit, by Parliament and by the people of the United Kingdom, who approved of the legislation which has been passed, and it is to the sense of justice of the English people that we appeal. We appeal also to Her Majesty's

751
Government. As I have before said in this House, if we lived in a foreign country our position might be a very different one, for if any of Her Majesty's subjects abroad were injured by any foreign State the noble Marquess at the head of the Government would not be slow in demanding redress. He would stand forward as their defender, knowing well that in any steps he took he would be secure in the confidence of his countrymen, who are convinced, from the long record of his public service, that the national honour is safe in his hands. I would ask the noble Marquess and Her Majesty's Government whether the national honour may not be equally concerned in dealing with Her Majesty's subjects at home? We claim the protection of the Government. We claim it as loyal subjects, loyal not only to Her Majesty the Queen but loyal to the connection with England, to the Constitution, the laws, and the traditions of England. I do not claim for Irish landlords a monopoly of loyalty, but I do say that among that class there are more loyal men than are to be found in any other class in Ireland, and we have suffered for our loyalty. It is sometimes cast in our teeth that under other circumstances we should have received at least as much consideration from our opponents as we have from those whom we supported, and that if we had thrown in our lot with the rest of our countrymen we should be in a better position. I do not accept this view. I doubt that any identity of political views would outweigh the unpardonable sin of holding property which is coveted by others. I only mention it to show the opinion of our opponents as to how we are treated. An article appeared not long ago in The Times, signed by a well-known writer, in which was described a conversation the writer had had with a friend in Cape Town some ton years ago, in which his friend, after making a sufficiently gloomy forecast of what would happen in South Africa, used words which are thoroughly applicable to the state of things in Ireland. "Remember," he said, "that as it was in 1881, the Government will take care that it does not pay anyone to be loyal." I sincerely hope that policy will not be pursued in South Africa, but it is in that spirit that Ireland has been governed. This is the feeling, not among landlords alone, but among loyal men of other classes in many parts
752
of Ireland. And well may it be so, when they see the property of loyal men gradually taken away for the benefit of their opponents, when they see that by another Legislative Act those men have been deprived of all voice in the management and administration of affairs in their country, when they see that in the case of a Government appointment one is selected not from among those who have been consistent in support of law and order, but from those whose conduct has been widely different, when any representations which they make to Government produce little or no effect. But if loyalty does not pay in Ireland disaffection does. It is this discouragement which is given to loyalists that encourages and fosters disaffection and agitation. As to the dangerous agitation now prevailing in Ireland, which, as the noble Duke said of the former Land League, is political in its origin, the people are taught by their leaders that as the land agitation previously brought about the Act of 1881, and has given them control over a portion of the landed property of Ireland, so they may by the present agitation endeavour to obtain control over the remainder. I am convinced that Her Majesty's Government are as much opposed to this agitation as I am. I have never failed to express that opinion. But can it be wondered at that it is strengthened and consolidated when its leaders see a candidate appointed to an important Government situation who some years ago was a leader and organiser of an equally immoral conspiracy f The Government may have satisfied themselves that the gentleman in question has modified the extremely lax principles of morality which admitted of this attitude, but no announcement has been made to that effect. It is not surprising that when the leaders of public opinion j in Ireland see that resistance to the law and antagonism to England are a sure passport to favour, they should do their utmost to maintain that attitude among the people. The people would be well enough if they were let alone. Everyone who lives among them will gladly recognise their many good and generous qualities. But they are an impulsive and a credulous race, easily led away by sophistical reasoning and held in thraldom by their leaders. On the occasion of the Royal visit, when the instinctive chivalry

753
and good feeling of the people led them to break away from their leaders, and tender to Her Majesty a welcome which no one who witnessed it is likely to forget, those leaders hastened to discount the enthusiasm which they had in vain endeavoured to repress and to assure the world that, though this welcome was extended to the Queen, the feeling of hostility towards England was as bitter and as determined as ever. They feared that they might lose the hold which they deemed their disloyal attitude had given them over the timidity of England. I deeply regret the position the noble Duke has taken up with regard to the motion now before the House, and I cannot help thinking that the Government are unaware of the discouragement which they are giving to all loyal classes in Ireland, who feel deeply that, because they have no political power they have been abandoned by England, in whom they thought they could place reliance.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I also deeply regret the reply of the noble Duke; but as his reply is in the negative, I will not occupy your Lordships' time by any arguments which I might have adduced in favour of the motion. I believe the noble Duke, in the course of his speech, referred to myself, but I was not able exactly to catch the purport of his remarks.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I only read an extract in which your name occurred.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I beg to assure your Lordships that I support the motion because I take an interest in the affairs of the landowners in Ireland, and that I am not in the slightest degree influenced by my own position. I only endeavour to serve others and to urge their grounds of grievance as far as possible. The answer which the noble Duke has given will be received in Ireland with bitterness and regret. I use the word "bitterness," because the landowners in that country will see that even their last effort to obtain redress has been opposed by the Government. I do wish the Government had a little more pluck, and that they would really take in hand the grievances of this particular section of Her Majesty's subjects, without looking too closely to the future and to the results of their action. I firmly believe that a
754
little pluck in this regard would produce the best results, and would be the means of bringing round their standard many of those who at the present time are wavering. It is not those who have large incomes who suffer so severely; it is those unfortunate gentlemen who have small incomes, and whose property is gradually being taken away from them. Year by year the Commission goes on, and each year more or less of the property of these unfortunate men is abstracted from them, so that in the course of a few years it is impossible to say what their position may be. I really fear that these men will cease to exist as a class—men whose ancestors fought for the Empire, as their sons are doing to-day —and that eight-tenths of the houses will be shut up in Ireland—houses which have produced such sterling yeomen and such sterling defenders of our country. I regret extremely the decision of Her Majesty's Government, but as long as we have life and breath we shall continue to do our best to urge the claims of those unfortunate landowner's whatever Government may be in power.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I was glad to hear that the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council admitted that the Act of 1881 had not done all that was expected at the time. It has, however, done a great deal more than we, as Irish landowners, expected, and we have suffered most severely at its hands. The noble Duke said the Commission could not possibly deal with many of the matters mentioned in the motion. The same sort of thing was said with regard to the Commission we asked for to inquire into the Land Acts. But if the recommendations of the Fry Commission were adopted by the Government they would go a long way to help the Irish landlords, and to remove their grievances. But what has happened? Scarcely anything has been done to carry out those recommendations. The noble Duke made a comparison between his property in Ireland and in Somersetshire. He said there were very large reductions in England, larger, I gathered, than in Ireland, but we must remember that in his Irish property there is a most valuable salmon fishery.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That has nothing to do with it.
*THE EARL OF MAYO: I admit that it was not included, but it is a most valuable asset in the property. There was one point which the noble Duke emphacised very much—namely, that we were not to expect compensation in pounds, shillings, and pence from the Exchequer. The noble Viscount did not say that we did expect compensation in this form. What he said was that, while we could see no reason why we should not receive compensation in actual payment of money, there were many other forms in which we could receive it. I do not suppose for one instant that anyone in his senses would imagine that we could ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pour golden sovereigns into our pockets because we have suffered in consequence of the Land Acts. Tenants in Ireland are lent money at 2¾ per cent., repayable by instalments spread over a long period, and in cases where Irish landlords have suffered from State interference with their rents, I think they might fairly claim the benefit of such loans. But this and other alternative methods of compensation are set forth in the recommendation of the Landlords' Convention of 1889, and are well known to the House. The comparisons of the noble Duke were not appropriate. He put forward as an argument that railway shareholders might be compared to Irish landlords, but I cannot see how that can be. Railway shareholders, no doubt, have to suffer loss when large improvements have to be made for the accommodation and safety of passengers, but if they have to provide large sums for such improvements what results—increasing traffics and increased revenue. Then the noble Duke mentioned, as another point in his argument, the Workmen's Compensation Act. Against claims upon them under that Act employers can insure; but how can an Irish landlord insure against the inroads the Land Commission make, every fifteen years, upon his income? If we could have insured against them we would have done so long ago. With regard to the question of rents having also been reduced in England, it must be remembered that tenant right, which exists in Ireland, does not exist in England. English landlords have not got that awful thing to face which is called tenant right, and which practically means this, that the landlord cannot regain possession of his property. I
756
will tell you how a landlord can regain possession of his property in Ireland. If a tenant does not pay his rent he can evict him, but what happens? The tenant puts up the tenant right to auction, and in order that the landlord can get back his property he has to buy it at the highest price that is bid at that auction. How would English landlords like to face that state of things? I ask your Lordships what is the use of talking of what happened when Sir Robert Peel passed measures in 1841 dealing with the Constabulary in Ireland? We have long passed that stage. The Corn Laws have been repealed, and, thank goodness, we have got a Constabulary. We have heard a great deal about the good that the Acts framed for the purpose of purchase have done in Ireland, but these Acts are framed and administered as if the interest of the tenant need be the only thing to be considered and consulted. The condition of purchase is made as tempting as possible to the tenant, and all proposals that have been made for mitigating the loss of income and the heavy cost entailed upon landlords who under these Acts have sold their property, have been dealt with both by the Government and the Land Commission in a grudging spirit. Mortgage debenture institutions, which have done so much good in Central Prussia, Eastern Prussia, and other parts of Germany, would be of the greatest use in Ireland. They do not entail any call upon the Exchequer, and the working of them amounts to this: a large number of proprietors unite in raising money upon their joint credit, which they lend to each other in such sums as they consider safe. I regret very much that Her Majesty Government have taken up this attitude with regard to the Royal Commission asked for by the noble Viscount. After all, we only ask that the matter should be inquired into. Of course, if the Commission find that we have got no losses, then we have no case; but we are so certain that we have a good case that we ask for this Royal Commission. A vast transfer of property has taken place in Ireland by the behest of Parliament, but Ireland as a whole is none the richer, the property having passed from one class to another, while the Imperial Exchequer stands by risking not a single sixpence in the transaction. I hope the noble Viscount will press his motion to a division.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I would like in a very few words to remind your Lordships of the question upon which you are asked to express an opinion. The topics that have been presented to-night so fairly and so forcibly by my noble friends have not been presented for the first time. On several occasions the same arguments have been addressed clearly and persuasively to your Lordships, but we are always bound to consider how far any proposals which are put forward are possible and practicable. Your Lordships are asked, as you were last year, to affirm that compensation should be given to the landowners. I have to remind your Lordships of what the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) has already pointed out —namely, that it is impossible to suggest that the justice of these claims has been admitted when every Member of the Government felt constrained last year, as on previous occasions, to vote against the suggestion then made that compensation was practicable and should be given. Analogies have been cited by my noble friend Lord Templetown in which compensation has been given, but on every single occasion that he mentioned the topic of compensation was dealt with at the time of the Act, and no one ever suggested that it was possible to go back after a number of years and give compensation in respect of the working of an Act of Parliament. I was an opponent of the Act of 1881, and I have never said a word in favour of its policy or operation. But we have to take it as an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book and deal with it as part of the law of the land. What is suggested is that in some way or other compensation is to be given for the way in which rents have been reduced under the working of the Act of 1881. Is that possible? Can every case under the Act be re-tried? Has it not to be borne in mind that thousands of cases have been settled by agreement between landlord and tenant? In thousands of cases there were no appeals. In thousands of others there were appeals, and the reduction of rent was affirmed. Would it be possible to disentangle the reductions and say, ''This much was worked out by economic causes and this much by the operation and undue working of an unfair and unreasonable Act of Parliament"? It is admitted that compensation in money is
758
practically impossible. It is admitted to be impossible also to take away from the tenants one single benefit they have received. Then what compensation is suggested? It is suggested that some method should be found of getting some form of indirect compensation elsewhere by other Acts of Parliament—methods that it is very hard to realise or understand. At the present moment there is the Tithes Bill, which has been asked for not as compensation, but as a mere tardy measure of justice, passing through the other House of Parliament. The Fry Commission has been mentioned. We shall have the pleasure of having that Commission's Report discussed on Monday, when I will be prepared to give my noble friend who introduced the question every possible information as to the method in which the recommendations of that Commission are being dealt with. Land purchase, which is the most hopeful solution of the Irish land question, is going on vigorously, and Section 40 of the Act of 1896 is working in a reasonable and satisfactory manner. I see my noble friend (Lord Templemore) smiling, but I claim that I know the purchase question, and am as well able as any of my noble friends to understand its bearings. With regard to loans to landowners to pay off their first charges, which were mentioned by the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Mayo), if a, method can be found by which loans on safe and easy terms can be granted, I shall be delighted, but I am strongly of opinion that its discovery would not be an asset solely in the possession of Irish landlords, but the Treasury would be asked to grant similar loans to other sections of the community. Now, what is the good of a Royal Commission? What benefit is suggested to come from voting for a Royal Commission in the circumstances I have named? Have we not had Royal Commissions and Committees enough in Ireland? There was the Richmond Commission and the Bessborough Commission before the Land Act of 1881; and after its passing there was the Committee of your Lordships' House, in which Lord Cairns took part, and in the time of the late Government the Morley Committee was appointed. We have had the Fry Commission, and what is the good of now appointing another Commission? I venture to say that the suggestion that a Commission should be appointed is

759
impracticable. I gather from the closing words of the speech of my noble friend the Earl of Mayo that your Lordships are asked to divide on this motion. That is not a matter on which I have a right to advise, but I should have thought that the question had been adequately dealt with

CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for receiving Report of Amendments.
LORD MONKSWELL: In moving the reception of this Report, I should wish to give the noble Lord who represents the Homo Office an opportunity of saying a
by the discussion which has taken place. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his motion, but if he does I shall feel it. my duty to vote against it.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS.

Grafton, D.

Falkland, V.

Hylton, L.

Frankfort de Montmorency, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kilmaine, L.

Winchester, M.

Leconfield, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Macnaghten, L.

Amherst, E.

Templetown, V. [Teller.]

Massy, L.

Annesley, E.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Bandon, E.

Aldenham, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Dartrey, E.

Ardilaun, L.

O'Neill, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Londesborough, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Rathdonnell, L.

Lucan, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Rossmore, L.

Mar, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Sherborne, L.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Crofton, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Morton, E.

De Freyne, L.

Portarlington, E.

De Mauley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Rosse, E.

de Ros, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Sandwich, E.

Digby, L.

Templemore, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Dunalley, L.

Tredegar, L.

Dunleath, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Ventry, L.

Bangor, V.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Harlech, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Romney, E.

Dinevor, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Selborne, E.

Glenesk, L.

Spencer, E.

Greville, L.

Beaufort, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

Northumberland, D.

Yarborough, E.

Heneage, L.

Herries, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Portman, V.

Hood of Avalon, L.

Zetland, M.

James, L.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) (L. Chamberlain.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Lawrence, L.

Leigh, J.

Abingdon, E.

Addington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bradford, E.

Alverstone, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carrington, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clarendon, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Mostyn, L.

Coventry, E.

Balfour, L.

Norton, L.

Denbigh, E.

Belper, L.

Reay, L.

Kimberley, E.

Brampton, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brassey, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Morley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Windsor, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Burghclere, L.

Northbrook, E.

Calthorpe, L.

word as to what the Home Office has done with regard to the suggestions made in the Standing Committee upon Clause 8.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): With regard to Clause 8, I should like to draw my noble

761
friend's attention to this point. All provisions now existing in private Acts with regard to crematoria which are of a like purpose to those which are in this Bill will be overruled. On the whole, I think that that is perfectly right, especially with regard to bye-laws and matters of that kind. But in Clause 3 the powers of a burial authority to provide and maintain burial grounds is made to include the provision of crematoria. Now, I presume that the result of that would be, that any burial authority will have power to raise money for the provision of such crematoria under the Public Health Act; but it may be that the existing authorities have power to raise money for the same purpose—that is a "like" purpose—under their private Acts in another way. Now it is possible that these crematoria may be in process of erection at the present time. The money which the authority would naturally obtain under the provisions of their private Act would be partly raised for the purpose of their crematoria. I think it is rather doubtful, as soon as this Act passes, if those powers would remain valid at all, and if the authority would not have to come under the Public Health Act to raise what they required. That would obviously be inconvenient. I suggested to my noble friend that he should ask the Local Government Board whether there is anything in my point; I am not quite certain that there is; but I think it is one that ought to be carefully considered; and if there is anything in it possibly he may be able to suggest an Amendment, or I should be very happy to co-operate with him in amending the clause.
LORD BELPER: With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Monkswell) I can assure him that the Home Office have very carefully considered the suggestions made in the Standing Committee with regard to alterations in Clause 8. The first suggestion made was that the private and local Acts which it is proposed to repeal should be placed in a schedule, and the second suggestion was with regard to the word "like." The Home Office have carefully considered both these points, and are not able to accept them, for these reasons, which I think will commend themselves to the House. It is quite unprecedented in any Bill of this sort—a
762
public Bill—in repealing local Acts to schedule those Acts, and indeed, on consideration, it would be seen that it was a very inconvenient and dangerous course, because, although it may be perfectly possible to know what the particular local Acts are which have passed lately, it may be dangerous to schedule the Acts because of the possibility of leaving out very small local Acts which may contain these powers without it being known; and it is thought that it is not desirable to attempt to schedule any local Acts when some might be omitted. With regard to the other point, it was objected that the word "like" was a somewhat indefinite word. I am, however, assured that the phraseology which has been adopted in this clause is precisely the phraseology of another Act, the Infectious Diseases Notification Act, and that in that case to inconvenience has been found. As a matter of fact the word "same," which was the word that would seem to be the natural one to be adopted, would not be convenient. This Bill is a general Bill for the purpose of making general regulations referring to all crematoria. In each of the local Acts they have only got their special powers with regard to the crematoria under their own jurisdiction. Therefore the word "like" is thought to be more convenient than the word "same." With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, I will certainly take care that it is inquired into in some way. Of course I am not responsible for the Local Government Board, but the matter shall be brought before them. I may point out, however, that this Act docs not come into force until the 1st day of April next, which would leave nine clear months after the Bill became an Act, and probably any financial arrangements which were in course of procedure could be completed within that time; and even if thas was not the case it would probably be no very great inconvenience, if the matter had to be put off longer, that the remaining sum had to be raised under the general Act rather than under the local Act.
LORD MONKSWELL: I do not know how long the noble Lord thinks it will take to obtain the opinion of the Local Government Board on this matter. The session is now getting very much advanced; I am told that there is a

763
possibility of this Bill passing this year if it leaves this House at once. I do not know whether there is any objection to taking the Third Reading on Monday.
LORD BELPER: With regard to what the noble Lord said as to the chance of the Bill passing this session, I was asked by the Secretary of State to say that, although the Home Office had moved a great many Amendments in this Bill, which they thought necessary in case the Bill passed at all, they do not wish it to be understood that they necessarily will take any responsibility with regard to the future procedure on the Bill.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) EXTENSION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1:—
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I mentioned to the noble Viscount, when this Bill was last before us, two points on Subsection (2) of this clause. One was as to whether the expression "contractors" would apply to labourers who were employed themselves directly on piecework. The other point was as to the word "habitually." The noble Viscount was kind enough to say that he would look into the matter and say whether he was quite satisfied that the words carried out the intention of the Bill.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): Your Lordships are fortunate enough to have here the noble Lord who was Attorney General at the time this Bill was passing through the other House, and he will no doubt explain exactly the grounds on which these words can be justified.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My point was merely this. The word "habitually" is no doubt a very general word, and I merely expressed a fear, which I have no doubt the noble Lord will be able to dispel, that that word may lead to inconvenience and litigation.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I think I can explain the matter in a few sentences. I will first say what it was that we tried to aim at. Where a man tilled his own land, and as a rule never employed labour—perhaps his son worked with him—we considered that he should not come within the Act just because he happened to have a few labourers at harvest time. The word "perpetually" was suggested, and also the word "continually," but it was pointed out that employment of labour for six or seven consecutive days might bring a man within either of those words. Finally, it was determined to adopt the word "habitually" as one which has a distinct popular meaning. I ventured in the other House to give three illustrations, which I venture to think will commend themselves to your Lordships as they did to that House. The law does know something about the word "habitually." We have the "habitual drunkard"; that means a man who is not always drunk, but whose habit is to drink. We have the "habitual criminal"; that means a man who is not always committing crime, but whose habit is to commit crime. Thirdly, in another place I pointed out that we had (your Lordships would not say that we have here) the "habitual bore"; that is, a man who is not always a bore, but whose habit is to bore. It occurred to us that the word which most nearly expresses ordinary employment in a popular way would be the word "habitually." The matter was discussed for a considerable time, and nobody was able to suggest a better word. I think it is a good thing to have a popular word in an Act of Parliament of this kind, so that it may be construed in a popular sense; and the words, "any employer who habitually employs one or more workmen" will indicate the class of persons intended to be brought within the scope of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. No doubt he is a very com-

765
petent judge as to whether this word would be likely to give rise to any difficulty in the courts. But I confess I should have thought that it was a word which, for the very reason that it was popular and vague, would be likely to lead to a good deal of dispute. However, I will not pursue the matter.
*LORD BERRIES: I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill this question. It very often happens in agricultural districts that a man—perhaps a small holder of land—undertakes to plough or hoe land at so much an acre, with his own horses. In Sub section (2) there is this proviso—
"Provided that where the contractor provides and uses machinery for the purpose of threshing, ploughing, or other agricultural work, he and he alone shall be liable."
Would horses be hold to come within those words? Suppose a man who contracts for this work takes a young horse of his own, and that young horse kicks him or his labourer, it would be rather hard that the employer should be liable to pay compensation.
LORD HENEAGE: I may mention another point of the same sort. It is a very common mode of procedure—in Lincolnshire, at any rate—for landlords' agents to let the loading of wood to a contractor. Who will be responsible for any injury which may take place in the loading of timber if it is done by contract and the carts belong to the contractor; will it come under the second sub-section or under the first?
LORD ALVERSTONE: I do not think there is any doubt that this Act will be read as one Act with the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897. Therefore, the proviso in Section 4 of the latter Act will apply, and the position will be that there will be the remedy against the employer who has sub-contracted the work, and there will be the remedy over against the contractor by the employer if the circumstances are such that the law would give him a remedy. When once you include forestry (which, I presume, would cover the operations the noble Lord opposite has referred to), there is no distinction between the contractor employed for that kind of work and the sub-contractor acting under the original Act. With regard to the ques-
766
tion of ploughing land and work of that kind, the real question will be: Is there a sub-contract for agricultural work? If so, it would come within the provisions of the Bill, and the workman would have his remedy against the employer, with the remedy over to which I have referred.
LORD HENEAGE: I am afraid I have not made my point clear. At line 15 there is this proviso—
"Provided that where the contractor provides and uses machinery for the purpose of threshing, ploughing, or other agricultural work, he, and he alone, shall he liable under this Act to pay compensation to any workman employed by him on such work."
Then, by Sub-section (3)—
"The expression 'agriculture' includes horticulture, forestry,"
and so on. Therefore, according to the Bill, as I read it, anything done with regard to woods would come under the proviso, and not under the original Act.
VISCOUNT CROSS: With regard to the question put by Lord Herries, I have an Amendment to propose to Clause 1— on page 1, in line 15, after the word "machinery," to insert "driven by mechanical power." That, I think, will meet the point.
LORD HERRIES: That would not meet the point I raised. I think "horses" should be introduced, as well as "machinery." It is possible that a contractor may make use of his own horse, and if he happened to make use of a bad-tempered horse, who kicked and injured him, the undertaker ought not to be liable.
LORD ALVERSTONE: In the special case that is put of threshing, ploughing, or other agricultural work, there is an express proviso that in that case the only person to be liable will be the person who contracts. I thought the noble Lord was asking about the general provisions of the Bill. In the special case he refers to it is quite clear that the sub-contractor only is intended to be liable.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think what my noble friend is in doubt about is, whether that would apply to the case of horses. The words are—
" Where the contractor provides and uses machinery for the purpose of threshing or ploughing or other agricultural work."

767
Now, if he uses a timber-gill, which is a cart of a particular kind for carrying timber, if the horse that he happened to employ were, as my noble friend put it, vicious, and kicked a labourer, would the contractor be liable under the clause, and not the employer in the first instance?
VISCOUNT CROSS: That is why I ventured to call attention to the Amendment that is to be moved later on. When these words are in—"driven by mechanical power"—then the liability of the subcontractor will be confined exclusively to that case. Where it is the ordinary employment of horses and mechanical power is not used, the general provisions will apply. This proviso is only to deal with one particular case. The main point intended to be met was the question of threshing machines, which, as the noble Lord knows, employ power other than horses for the purpose of being driven.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Viscount did not answer my question as to the contractor. I asked him whether he was quite satisfied that "contractor" would include an individual doing work by piecework.
VISCOUNT CROSS: That question has been very carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Department, and they are perfectly satisfied with the words as they stand.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 15, after the word 'machinery,' to insert the words 'driven by mechanical power.'"—(Viscount Cross.)
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am rather puzzled by these words in Subsection (3)—
"Where any workman is employed by the same employer, mainly in agricultural but partly or occasionally in other work, this Act shall apply also to the employment of the workman in such other work."
I think I am right in saying that "domestic servant" has never yet been included under the main Act; and it would seem in this case that if a workman was also employed as a domestic servant the employer would become liable for accidents occurring to the man in the performance of his duty as a domestic servant. That would be a very large extension of the original Act.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I am not at all surprised that the phraseology of this sub-section has raised the doubt expressed by the noble Earl. The governing words are—
"Employed by the same employer mainly in agricultural … work."
You have first to find the servant who is "mainly employed in agricultural work"; then, if that servant happens to do something else, it may be domestic work, he is to get compensation for injury received in any work in which he is employed. The domestic servant who was not "mainly employed in agricultural work" would not be brought within the scope of the Bill. I agree that you have to make some division, and the dividing line is indicated by those words, "mainly employed in agricultural work."
LORD BURGHCLERE: There is an anomaly which is very patent on a little consideration of this sub-section. To follow out the argument of my noble friend a little further, we see at line 24—
"The expression 'agriculture' includes horticulture."
I will put a concrete case. "Horticulture," I suppose, would cover gardeners. In many establishments the gardener sometimes does work in the stable. By the preceding clause it is obvious that if the man is employed partly or occasionally in other work he also receives compensation. Therefore, employed in the stable, he will receive compensation if he is kicked by a horse. But, then, this anomaly will occur. There may be a coachman or a helper in that stable, and, as the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, by the original Act domestic servants are exempted from compensation. Domestic servants include coachmen and grooms. Therefore, the coachman who is doing work in the stable and who is kicked by a horse, would not get compensation, whereas the gardener who is there only for casual work, and is kicked by the same horse, would get compensation.
LORD ALVERSTONE: No one is more conscious of the anomaly than I am, but, to get over it, the noble Lord must move a clause extending the Bill to domestic servants. As long as you break up the servants into classes, then the class you are proposing to make the Bill apply to are to be those "mainly

769
employed in agricultural work." The anomaly simply arises from the fact that you bring your gardener within the scope of the Bill, and not the coachman. The only way to got rid of the anomaly is to extend the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not quite follow that. The anomaly is created by this Bill.
LORD ALVERSTONE: Certainly.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then what is the necessity for the clause? If a man is employed in agricultural work, when he meets with an accident in the course of that employment he will be entitled to compensation.; but where is the necessity for extending that to the case of other work? It seems to me to be the gratuitous creation of what I think to be a most absurd anomaly—an anomaly which will not exist if this quite unnecessary clause is not put into the Bill. A man when he is employed in agricultural work will undoubtedly by the Bill be entitled to compensation; why should it be necessary, because he happens to be employed in agricultural work, to give him an additional privilege? There is no difficulty in getting rid of the anomaly by the simple method of striking out the words altogether.
LORD ALVERSTONE: I quite appreciate the anomaly to which attention is called, but the difficulty we had was this. We tried—I am speaking of those who then were discussing the Bill—to get rid of litigation as far as we could; and this difficulty was pointed out. Take the gardener, who prima facie comes under the Bill. Suppose he happens to be employed for an hour or so in doing some work which is not gardening, and meets with an accident. You would have immediately a controversy in the law courts as to whether or not he met with the injury in the course of doing one piece of work or another; and it was thought to be better that the man who came within the scope of the Bill should be within it for all the work that he did. I am not justifying the anomaly; but that was considered to be the best way of getting over the difficulty. It was thought better to distinguish between the classes of workmen, rather than between the classes of work.
Amendment agreed to. Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 171.)

DISTRICT COUNCILLORS AND GUARDIANS (TERM OF OFFICE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.