Sitting of 25 June 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
King's College, London (Transfer) Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified).—Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Tawe Valley Gas Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London Port and Docks Bill (by Order).—Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Buckie Burgh and Buckie (Cluny) Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.
Galashiels Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill.—"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland)

49
Act, 1899, relating to Galashiels Drainage and Burgh Extension," presented by Mr. Sinclair read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Monday, 6th July, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill.—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]; Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]; Upton Town Hall Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords].—Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 3).
Sir JOSEPH COMPTON-RICKETT reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to appoint special trustees in regard to certain land and premises of the Honourable Artillery Company; and for other purposes." [Honourable Artillery Company Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising and requiring the trustees of the will and codicils of the Hon. Frederick James Tollemache, deceased, to invest part of the trust funds and property in their hands, subject to the trusts of the said will and codicils, upon a transfer of a mortgage for two hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds created by the Right Hon. Ada Maria Katharine, Baroness Sudeley, the tenant for life under the said will and codicils, upon the security of her life interest under the said will and codicils and certain policies of assurance upon her own life; and for other purposes." [Tollemache Estate Bill [Lords].
Honourable Artillery Company Bill [Lords]; Tollemache Estate Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Crowthorne and other places, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour; From Briton Ferry; Bryn; Kenfig Hill; Kirkby in Furness; Nantymoel; Pontrhydyfen; Poole; Portsmouth; and, Skewen; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Order [24th June] that the Paper relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Leyton Urban District Council, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4013, 4015, and 4043 to 4048 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 16, 1908).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain amending Article 5 of the Agreement of 25th November, 1875, respecting the Postal Service between Gibraltar and Spain. Signed at Madrid, 9th April, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1902 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Applications to and Proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1902, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 198.]
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of List, of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1908, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "of the gross income and outgo of the Government of the United Kingdom in the year 1906–7, and a corresponding estimate for the year 1908–9, showing for each separate department or voted service the total income from all sources and the total outgo under all heads, including in italics receipts from or payments into the Exchequer and distinguishing between: (a) Sums raised by loan; (b) sums raised by taxation; (c) payments received from the public for services rendered, including postal revenue, court fees, fees for admission to museums, sales of publications, etc.; (d) payments received from, or an estimate of the value of unpaid services rendered to, other Government Departments; (e) rents, royalties, etc., received on account of Government property or Government monopolies; (f) sums received from sale of stores, etc.; (g) sums received for fines and penalties; (h) sums refunded; (i) sums received from local authorities; (j) sums received from other Governments; and distinguishing between payments charged on votes in Supply, payments charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and other payments, including the estimated value of services received from other Government Departments, and not paid for; and further showing whether such payments were devoted to reduction of debt, or to current expenditure, or to grants to local authorities or other Governments."—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Passages for Discharged Seamen from Continental Ports.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that seamen discharged from ships at Continental ports and repatriated to ports in the United Kingdom are not provided with proper accommodation on the passenger steamers; whether he is aware that the crew of the British steamer "Ragore" were sent from Antwerp to Harwich, and the seamen

    53
    in question had no place to sleep in, and were unable to obtain any refreshments in the second-class accommodation, and that no accommodation is provided for third-class passengers on the Great Eastern steamers; and whether he will instruct consuls, when deciding the amount by which seamen will be repatriated, that proper accommodation is provided for the seamen who are being sent to the United Kingdom.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have received no complaint from the crew of the "Ragore," but I understand that the Great Eastern Railway Company decline to accept seamen except as third-class or deck passengers from Antwerp to Harwich. I am in communication with the company and will

    1885.*

    1895.

    1905.

    1907.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Barvas

    2

    11

    7

    0

    12

    6

    13

    8

    Uig

    2

    3

    2

    4

    9

    10

    7

    0

    Lochs

    4

    2

    6

    4

    12

    6

    12

    3

    Tarbert (Harris)

    —

    1

    8

    4

    3

    5

    10

    * The figures for 1885 include public health rate, which was then levied parochially along with the poor rate.

    The figures for 1907 are given, as the official figures for 1908 are not available.

    Burns Hartopp Estate, Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the tenants on the Burns Hartopp estate at Caherdaniel, county Kerry, purchased some years ago by the Congested Districts Board, will be entitled to pay purchase annuities, in place of the old rents, which they are still paying; and can he state when it is expected that the road across the Coomnahorna bog will be completed.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estate in question was not vested in the Congested Districts Board until April last.
    consider whether it is practicable to take further action in the matter, and will inform my hon. friend of the result.

    Scottish Poor Rates.
    MR. YOUNGER: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state what is the average poor rate for Scotland; and what have been the poor rates in the parishes of Barvas, Uig, and Lochs, in the Lews, and Tarbert, in Harris, for the years 1885, 1895, 1905, and 1908.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The average poor rate for Scotland in 1906–7 (the latest year for which statistics are available) was ll½d. per £. The actual poor rates levied were—
    A number of the tenants are taking advantage of the assistance offered by the Board for building and improving dwellings, and the resale of the estate will be completed as soon as this work is done. It is not the case that the tenants are paying the old rents; they have been paying interest at 3½ per cent, on their purchase-money since November, 1906. The Board have constructed two miles of road to the turf bog, but do not think it necessary to extend the road across the bog. Passages from the turf banks to the road will be cleared and drained.

    Maybery Estate, Kenmare.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the evicted tenants on the Maybery estate,

    55
    near Kenmare, have not yet been reinstated; can he explain the cause of the delay; and can he state approximately when they will be reinstated.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners made an offer to the owner for the purchase of five evicted holdings on the estate in question, but the owner declined to accept the price offered. The Commissioners have since had a fresh inspection made, and are now considering their inspector's report with a view to further action in the matter.

    Coonana Pier, Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board is now in a position to provide a beacon light on the pier at Coonana, County Kerry; and whether, in view of the heavy labour necessitated by the use of large fishing boats, the Board will give some assistance in the procuring of a windlass for hauling up these boats.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board hope within a few weeks to provide lamps on the Coonana Pier for the convenience of the fishermen, but they are not satisfied that a windlass would be suitable for use at that place.

    The Law Courts.
    MR. ALDEN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the question of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the existing accommodation of the Law Courts, with a view to ascertaining how far a rearrangement of courts and rooms might be made which would obviate the necessity of building upon the existing garden and open space.
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I regret that I am unable to adopt the proposal of my hon. friend. The question of accommodation has been considered very fully with the judicial authorities, and no rearrangement such as he suggests is possible.

    Marble Arch Coffee Stall.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the First
    56
    Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the removal of the coffee stall, which for fifty-two years has stood at the Marble Arch, and for the last eighteen years has been kept by L. G. Jeans; whether Jeans has been fined for obstructing the way; and whether, under the circumstances, another site will be allotted to him as was done in a similar case for the stallholders in St. James Park.
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) This is a matter with which I am not concerned. It is purely a question for the police.

    Steamship "Helga."
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state out of what fund the steamship "Helga" was provided for the use of the Department of Agriculture.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The purchase and maintenance of the steam cruiser "Helga" have been provided for by the Department's endowment fund.

    Grant for Irish Fishery Development.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the, Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state what is the total sum provided for the protection and development of Irish sea and inland fisheries, respectively, by the Fisheries Section of the Department of Agriculture.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) By Section 16 (d) of The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, the sum of £10,000 per annum is allocated from the Department's endowment fund for the purposes of sea fisheries. About half of that sum is at present required for sea-police duties. No special funds are set aside by the Act for the purposes of inland fisheries; but, out of the surplus remaining after the several applications of the endowment fund, as provided for in Section 16 of the Act, have been met, grants are made from time to time to boards of conservators in aid of inland fisheries, with the concurrence of the Agricultural Board.

    Cruisers for Irish Fishery Protection.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that the Scottish Fishery Board are in receipt of £15,000 per annum, out of the Local Taxation Account of Scotland, for the maintenance of four fishery cruisers, and that, in addition to this, the Admiralty, under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, place two cruisers at the disposal of the Fishery Board for police purposes; and whether any, and, if so, what, similar provision is made for the protection of Irish fisheries.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department understand that the facts are as stated in the Question. The only provision of a similar character made in Ireland is that out of which the Department purchased and maintained their steam cruiser "Helga."

    Irish Afforestry Inspector.
    MR. MULDOON: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether Mr. Ellison, an inspector in the employment of the Department, has been discharged, and, if so, on what grounds; and whether it is proposed to again take this officer into the service of the Department when forestry work is commenced.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) Mr. Ellison was employed by the Department for certain work in connection with forestry under an engagement, dated June, 1904, which was terminable at any time by three months' notice. As the work for which he was employed was practically completed, and as no further investigations or extensive operations in regard to forestry involving any large expenditure were contemplated, the Department on 31st March last informed Mr. Ellison that they felt obliged to notify him that his engagement would terminate on 1st July next. Pending the decision of the Government in the matter of providing funds to enable the Department to extend their forestry operations, the Department are not in a position to reply to the latter portion of the Question.

    Import and Export Trade Statistics.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture
    58
    (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to the statement made, in the lately issued Report on Irish imports and exports for 1906, that until import and export Returns are available which specify the nature, weight, and value of goods, any figures put forward with regard to the import and export value of manufactured articles can only be regarded as approximate in character; and can he state what steps he proposes to take in order to secure real accuracy.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell) The Department are aware of the statement referred to and are fully alive to the disadvantages under which their reports on exports and imports are compiled, but legislation is needed to enable the Department to obtain adequate Returns. This matter is at present under consideration.

    Trawling in Sheephaven Bay.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received information that a steam trawler has recently been trawling day and night in and about the entrance to Sheephaven Bay; whether complaints have been received of damage to fishermen's nets; and whether he will take steps to prevent a continuance of the practice.
    (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) Steam trawling is at all times prohibited in Sheephaven between Breaghey Head and Rinnafagla. In the area between that line and a line from Norn Head to Rinnafagla it is not prohibited, save when large shoals of mackerel or herrings have set in there, and while boats are at such times using drift nets for the capture of these fish. No complaint of illegal trawling in Sheephaven, or of consequent injury to fishermen's gear, has been received. The Department, will, having regard to the means at their disposal, take all possible steps to see that the fishery laws and bye-laws are observed.

    Limerick Competitions.
    MR. BYLES: To ask Mr. Attorney-General, having regard to the result of the trial, Blyth v. Hulton, in the Court of Appeal last Friday, and particularly to the dictum of the learned Judge that a limerick competition, though

    59
    designed to look like a trial of skill, is really nothing else than a lottery, what legislative or other steps he proposes to take to protect the public from fraud and to enforce the existing law against lotteries.
    (Answered by Sir William Robson.) A Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament is now sitting to consider the present condition of the law as to lotteries and to report upon it, and upon the terms of this Report must depend the question whether any and what fresh legislation is requisite in the public interest.

    Unclaimed Property.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will consider the desirableness of introducing legislation to make it compulsory upon bankers, solicitors, and others having in their possession property belonging to the estates of deceased persons, and having knowledge of their death, to disclose the fact of such possession to the executors.
    (Answered by Sir William Robson.) Promises or pledges with regard to the introduction of legislation are beyond my scope. I hope also that legislation is scarcely necessary to compel bankers to disclose to the owners of property the fact that such property is in their possession as bankers.

    Deptford Cattle Market.
    MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Board has been called to the fact that, owing to the shortage of American and Canadian cattle, no market was held at Deptford either on Monday or Wednesday of last week, and that already this year seventeen of the usual markets have not been held at Deptford; whether he has any official information showing that such shortage of cattle is due to a designed and regulated limitation of supplies rather than to an actual shortage; and whether the Board in the interests of British consumers will institute an inquiry.
    60
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are aware that no market was held at Deptford on the days mentioned, and that during this year nineteen of the usual markets have not been held. An actual shortage of cattle imported from the United States and Canada undoubtedly exists, 19,000 fewer cattle having been landed at Deptford this year than last, but the Board have no information to show that this shortage is due to the cause suggested by my hon. friend. It is generally attributed to the present high price of maize and other feeding stuffs, and to local conditions temporarily affecting the trade in the United States. The Board do not consider that any specific inquiry would serve any useful purpose, but they will bear the suggestion in mind.

    Imports of Foreign Cattle.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture, what are the numbers of cattle received at the foreign cattle markets for immediate slaughter from the United States and from Canada for the week ending 20th June; and what were the numbers from the same countries for the corresponding week last year.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The information for which my hon. friend asks is as follows—

    Countries.

    Week ended 20th June, 1908.

    Week ended 22nd June, 1907.

    Number.

    Number.

    Canada

    2,623

    3,865

    United States

    3,688

    8,820

    Prices of Beef.
    MR. COOPER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the present increase in the price of English beef is consequential upon the increase of the price of American chilled beef, and not from any deficiency in the supply of the

    61
    English beef; and what steps the Board intend to take to secure a cheaper and more plentiful supply of beef.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) There is no evidence of any shortage in our Home supplies of beef, and the recent rise in prices appears to be due to the special conditions affecting our supplies from America at the present time. The Board will continue to do all they can to assist and encourage production.

    Right of Speaking in Sheffield Public Parks.
    MR. W. THORNETo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the sentence of two months imprisonment passed upon G. H. Fletcher by the Sheffield stipendiary for addressing meetings in the public parks; and whether, in view of the character of the sentence and Fletcher's previous good character, he will take steps to reduce the sentence.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am making inquiries into this case, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    Manchester Education Conference.
    MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the resolutions agreed upon by the representative conference upon the education question recently held at Manchester; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation upon the basis of the recommendations then made.
    (Answered by Mr. McKinnon Wood.) The attention of my right hon. friend has been drawn to the resolutions referred to by the hon. Gentleman. While respecting the desire of those who agreed to the resolutions to arrive at terms which would bring the education controversy to an end, he regrets to have to express the opinion that the resolutions are administratively impossible and are open to such strong objection on principle that they are not likely to meet with substantial support.

    Cost of Supervising Sugar Factories.
    MR. VILLIERS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the estimated State expenditure for the financial year ending 31st March, 1909, on account of the cost of supervising sugar factories in bond under the obligation imposed by the Sugar Convention, 1902; inasmuch as the grant of such expenditure is made to enable His Majesty to carry out the obligation of that Convention only, do His Majesty's Government propose to apply a portion of that grant to expenditure coming into payment after 1st September, 1908, at which date the Convention of 1902 is superseded by the Additional Act of 1907; and, if so, what authority have they, either from this House or from any Committee of this House, thus to apply the grant made for the purposes of the Sugar Convention, 1902, to the purposes of the Additional Act, 1907.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No separate estimate of expenditure for supervising sugar refineries in bond is framed by the Customs Department. The present estimated annual cost to the Crown of such supervision is, however, £15,245. My hon. friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that the Sugar Convention of 1902 is superseded by the Additional Act of 1907. The obligation, under Article II. of the Convention, to place sugar refineries in bond remains in full force.

    Collection of Licence Duties.
    MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to employ Government officers in England and Wales to collect spirit licence duties and certain other licence duties, all for local taxation purposes, and at the same time to make it necessary for a local authority to employ officials to travel over the same areas to collect other licence duties also for local taxation purposes; and has it been considered whether this will lead to economy and efficient dispatch of business or the reverse.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) This matter has been fully considered, and

    63
    I am convinced that the changes contemplated will lead to economy and to a more efficient dispatch of business.

    Reorganisation of the Revenue Service.
    MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the proposal to make important changes in the organisation of the Revenue services on the individual advice of certain officials, he will say whether such changes should be made, if at all, on the advice of the Boards of Inland Revenue and Customs; will he explain why it has apparently not been considered worth while to seek the advice of these Boards on matters vitally affecting the services which they are supposed to administer; will he state the duties and responsibilities discharged by these Boards and say whether any useful work is performed by them which cannot be undertaken equally well by the staff.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must again refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave to the four Questions put by him on the 4th instant.
    MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what difference exists between the duties of the Revenue officers in England and in Scotland to require in the former case the transfer of certain licence duties to local authorities, whereas in the latter case no such transfer is considered necessary or desirable.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I beg to refer my hon. friend to the reply I made to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Hythe on Monday last.

    Relief of the Unemployed.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what money has been decided upon as a grant towards the relief of the unemployed.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No decision on the Question has as yet been reached.

    proof Spirit in Cider.
    MR. LUPTON:To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of proof spirit in ordinary English cider, and if it is more or less than the percentage in ordinary English light ale.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The proof spirit in English cider varies from as low as 2 to 11 per cent., but 5 to 7 per cent, may be regarded as a fair average. In ordinary English light ale the per centage of proof spirit varies from 6 to 11, but 7 to 8 per cent. may be considered a fair average for cheap light ale.

    Unclaimed Bank Balances.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state on what grounds the Treasury objects to asking the Bank of England and the other banks of the three Kingdoms whether they are willing to supply voluntarily to Parliament statements showing in each case the total value of unclaimed balances since the foundation of the bank; the interest which would have accrued to each account if it had not been dormant; the total value of the drafts and bills of exchange remaining unpaid, and interest thereon; the value of banknotes issued and not presented for repayment, with interest thereon; the value of unclaimed stock and dividends held, with interest thereon; and the estimated value of the plate and other valuables held by the bank and unclaimed.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As there is no power to compel the banks to make such a return, I am not prepared, as at present advised, to invite them to do it voluntarily.

    Cost of Practice Ammunition at Glasgow.
    MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the County Association of Glasgow has lately increased the price for practice ammunition to the members of the Territorial Force, that the present charge incurs an outlay of 2s. for going over the range, and that the effect of this

    65
    is bound to be to lower the standard of shooting in that neighbourhood; and whether, under the circumstances, he will give facilities to the association by which it may sell the ammunition at a lower price.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The General Officer Commanding has been requested to inquire into the matter.

    15-Pounder Gun Shells.
    MR. CARLILE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of shells for the newly-converted 15-pounder guns which will be made at Woolwich Arsenal this year.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The present stock is sufficient for full equipment and for practice for some time. None, therefore, will be made this year at the Arsenal.

    Artillery Practice—Efficiency Regulations.
    MR. CARLILE: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many rounds will be fired per battery of the new converted 15-pounder gun to obtain efficiency; and what percentage of hits makes a first, or second, or third-class marksman in the Territorial Artillery.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the first part of the Question the allowance of ammunition per battery is 200 rounds annually, but no classification standard has yet been considered for the Territorial Artillery. As regards the second part of the Question, there is no such thing as a first, second, or third-class marksman in the artillery.

    Territorial Artillery Officers.
    MR. CARLILE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the exact number of officers now serving or appointed, or to be shortly appointed, to the Territorial Artillery who have seen any war service as Artillery officers.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The lists of approved officers have not yet been forwarded by the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, and it is not,
    66
    therefore, practicable at present to give the required information.

    Boys at Woolwich Arsenal.
    MR. CARLILE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of boys now employed at the Woolwich Arsenal.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) 1,677 boys are now employed at Woolwich Arsenal.

    Yeomanry Pay.
    MR. GUINNESS: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the Yeomanry now serving are completing periods of enlistment under old rates of pay; and how many have joined under the new conditions as to pay.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Approximately 18,000 of the Yeomanry were on 1st June enlisted in the Territorial Force on old rates of pay and 1,000 on new rates of pay.

    Colonel Smythe's Collinstown Estate.
    MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the facts within the knowledge of the Estates Commissioners that the farm on Colonel Smythe's estate, Collinstown, Westmeath, from which Mrs. Riggs was evicted, is still vacant and on the landlord's hands, stands isolated some miles distant from the owner's demesne, has no connection with that demesne, and is not used or caable of being used as a home farm; that Mrs. Riggs' son, in exile for want of a home, desires to return to the evicted farm; and that Mrs. Riggs, in her duty to herself and her children, will not, after twenty-five years in a Land League hut, surrender her claim to restoration under the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907, will he ascertain definitely when the Commissioners purpose to restore this evicted family.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to his Question on this subject on 15th May last. On 1st instant

    67
    the hon. Member was, I understand, informed by the Estates Commissioners that, as Mrs. Riggs has declined to accept the parcel of land offered to her, they have struck her name off their list, and will take no further action in her case.

    Cahirciveen Evicted Tenant.
    MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, have been taken to secure the reinstatement of Dennis Curran, now living in New Market Street, Cahirciveen, who was evicted from his holding on the estate of Mr. T. G. Williams, in the parish of Dromod, County Kerry.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have fully considered the aplication of Dennis Curran and have decided that they can take no action upon it.

    Irish Teachers' Pay.
    MR. MOONEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that some of the transition teachers are losing upwards of £40 annually by the operation of the rules of the Commissioners of National Education that came into force in 1900; and, if so, will he take steps to see that a portion of the forthcoming grant will be used to redress the grievances of this section of the teachers.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on 3rd March last to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for South Down, in which I stated that the teachers referred to have already received full consideration, and that each particular case has been dealt with on its merits. The Government, is at present advised, see no good reason to suggest any alteration in the manner of the disposal of the additional grant as indicated in the Supplementary Estimate now before Parliament.

    Irish Intermediate Education Board.
    MR. KETTLE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the rules and programme of the Board of Intermediate
    68
    Education in Ireland will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The rules and programme for 1909 were laid upon the Table on the 23rd instant.

    Belfast Trams Committee's Report.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report submitted to the Tramways and Electricity Committee of the Belfast Corporation on the 22nd instant, by Mr. C. E. Dyer, City Accountant; whether the report stated that in the half-yearly statement submitted in October last the outstanding unpaid bills were taken at £13,556, whereas they proved afterwards to have been £16,544, or a difference of £2,988, and that the item of power was also undercharged; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists in Belfast with the management and finance of the tramway system, he will take care that the Local Government Board is made fully aware of all the facts relating to the tramway accounts.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have not received a copy of the Report referred to, but they will call the attention of their auditor to the facts alleged in the Question.

    American Gooseberry Mildew.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give the total number of outbreaks of American gooseberry mildew in the occurring stage which have occurred this year, and the counties in which they have severally occurred; and whether these outbreaks have occurred in plantations where the instructions of the Board as regards pruning in winter have been carried out.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Seventy outbreaks of American gooseberry mildew in the summer stage have occurred this year in the following counties, viz.:—Herefordshire (2), Warwickshire (4), Norfolk (10), Isle of Ely (7),

    69
    Worcestershire (13), and Huntingdonshire (34). With the exception of one outbreak in Herefordshire and another in Warwickshire all the cases have occurred in plantations where the disease appeared last year. They are probably due to imperfect pruning. I may add that fruit growers are now willingly complying with the requirements of our Orders and are taking all necessary steps to get rid of the disease.

    Sheep Disease—Salving.
    MR. FULLERTON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has any official information showing that sheep are in the best possible condition of protection from parasitic attack when the old-established custom of salving is adopted by farmers; and, if so, whether he will see that no compulsion is exercised on farmers to dip their sheep in all cases where the sheep have been effectively salved.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board raise no objection to the salving of sheep, but in view of the conclusions arrived at by the Departmental Committee on the dipping and treatment of sheep, and of the advice of their veterinary officers on this matter, the Board cannot regard it as such an effective precaution against sheep scab as dipping in an approved sheep-dip.

    Bolton Telephonist's Grievance.
    MR. GILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a female telephonist at Bolton, who has been performing supervising duty for two years without any allowance, has now been passed over by a junior, who is to receive 4s. per week allowance; whether he is aware that the officer passed over has not had a single complaint or irregularity urged against her, and that the only reason given to her is that she is too friendly with the staff; and whether he will make full inquiry into the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have received no appeal from the telephonist concerned. I am fully aware of the circumstances of the case, and am satisfied that no injustice was done.

    Tobacco Manufacture Regulations.
    MR. WATT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the quantities of tobacco permitted to be manufactured under the, various licence duties ranging from £5 5s. to £31 10s.; the total amounts derived from licence duties to wholesale tobacco manufacturers during the last seven years; whether the number of firms paying these is much reduced in that time; and whether he will continue the graduation of taxation up to a much higher poundage.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The quantities of tobacco permitted to be manufactured under the various rates of licence duty are as follows—

    Licence Duty.

    Ibs.

    £5 5s. not exceeding

    20,000

    £10 10s. not exceeding

    40,000

    £15 15s. not exceeding

    60,000

    £21 0s. not exceeding

    80,000

    £26 5s. not exceeding

    100,000

    £31 10s. exceeding

    100,000

    The following is a statement of the number of licences granted, and the net receipt of duty from such licences in the seven years ended 31st March, 1908—

    Year.

    Number of licenses issued.

    Duty.

    £

    1901–2

    502

    6,846

    1902–3

    482

    6,435

    1903–4

    464

    6,079

    1904–5

    441

    5,843

    1905–6

    429

    5,460

    1906–7

    415

    5,486

    1907–8

    415

    5,408

    It is not considered advisable to continue the graduation to a higher rate.

    Customs Duties on Hops.
    MR. VERNEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state what are the Customs duties imposed upon hops in

    71
    various foreign countries, together with the corresponding Excise duties, if any.
    (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The rates of import duty imposed on hops in various foreign countries are stated at page 571 of the Return "Foreign Import Duties, 1907" (Cd. 3859). I am not aware that Excise duties are levied on hops in any of the principal hop-producing countries.

    1st Argyll and Bute Volunteer Artillery.
    MR. AINSWORTH: To ask the Secretary of State for War when the full complement of guns will be delivered to the 1st Argyll and Bute Royal Garrison Artillery (Volunteers): whether he is aware that the two guns already delivered were delivered without pack-saddles and fittings; whether he is now in a position to say what the allowance will be for officers' uniform; and whether he will consider the advisability of allowing for the insurance of the men against accidents likely to occur when dealing with untrained horses.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The full number of guns will be issued when the corps is ready to receive them. The pack saddlery is not yet ready, but it is hoped will be ready for issue by the end of the month. As regards uniform, I have already explained to the House that the amount of the expenditure on uniform on transfer will be granted up to a sum of £20 under the conditions laid down in Army Order of 18th March, 1908. As regards accidents, compensation will be granted as laid down in Paragraph 105 of Part II. of the same Army Order.

    Bechuanaland Expedition Reward.
    MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has under consideration the award of a medal or some other decoration for the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who took part in the Bechuanaland expedition of 1884–5; and, if so, when the distribution is likely to take place and, seeing the length of time which has already taken place, if he will do what he can to expedite it.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The grant of a medal for this expedition was refused by my predecessors on the
    72
    grounds that there were no active operations to justify it. I see no reasons for departing from this decision.

    Woolwich Arsenal—Compensation Case.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether an increased compensation allowance can be granted to William Edward Ansell, a painter in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, who was incapacitated by falling from a scaffold whilst at work at the projectile store in 1905; and, if not, whether he will take steps to increase the allowance of 2s. 8d. a week under the circumstances.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The allowance of 2s. 8d. a week was fixed as the result of the medical examinations which took place in July, 1906, March, 1907, and March, 1908. It was found at all three examinations that his capacity was only slightly impaired by the accident. The allowance is based on these examinations and his average weekly earnings before the accident.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Fires on Admiralty Property.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state approximately the value of Government property and premises destroyed or damaged by fire during the last two years.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKENNA,): As I have stated, the Admiralty do not insure their property against fire, and therefore there are no statistics very readily available to enable me to assist the hon. Member; but I have looked through the reports of the cases of fire that have occurred at Admiralty establishments in the United Kingdom during the last two years, and I think I can safely say that the amount of damage does not exceed £10,000.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: How many fires would be involved in that loss of £10,000?
    MR. McKENNA: Not many, but I cannot charge my memory with the exact number.
    MR. CROOKS: Any galley fires among them?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    H.M.S. "Commonwealth."
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how long H.M.S. "Commonwealth" was in dock after grounding on Hamilton Spit, in the Island of Arran, and what was the cost of effecting the necessary repairs.
    MR. McKENNA: The "Commonwealth" was docked at Devonport for repairs after grounding, on 30th August, 1907, and undocked on the 4th October, 1907. The grounding took place on the 23rd August, 1907. No separate account was kept of the expenditure incurred in making good the damage referred to, but the estimated cost of the work was £3,450; and from a return of expenditure which includes the cost of the work in question, there seems no reason to suppose that the actual expenditure was in excess of this estimate.

    Dockyard Employees and the Territorial Army.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to give facilities to men employed in naval dockyards to join the Territorial Army.
    MR. McKENNA: As far as the Admiralty are concerned, no obstacle will be placed in the way of dockyard men who wish to join the Territorial Army.
    MR. ASHLEY: And in the event of the mobilisation of the Territorial Force how will the work of the dockyards go on?
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: Are the men aware of the views of the Admiralty on this point?
    MR. McKENNA: I assume that the fact is known in the dockyards. I replied to a similar Question on 1st June, and no doubt the answer was reported.

    Aden Guard Ships.
    MR. J. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty for what periods during the last year British guard ships have been withdrawn from the port of Aden; whether he will inquire if their absence has resulted in an increase of the slave trade in the southern part of the Red Sea; and whether he will make arrangements for the guard ships to be again stationed there.
    MR. McKENNA: There is no permanent guard ship at Aden; but one of His Majesty's ships on the East Indian station is generally there. During the last year Aden has been without a ship for a period of five months, an unusually long period, for which there were exceptional reasons. No information has been received which would point to an increase of the slave trade having taken place in the southern part of the Red Sea, but inquiries will be made on this point. The movements of His Majesty's ships are determined by the requirements of the service, and any circumstances requiring the presence of a ship at Aden will be duly taken into account by the Commander-in-Chief.

    Returns of Naval Casualties.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Board will grant a Return of casualties to warships such as has been issued for many years past.
    MR. McKENNA: This matter has been the subject of long and careful consideration, and the conclusion we have come to is that we should not continue in this or future years to publish a Return of casualties to ships, the completeness of which it is impossible to guarantee.
    MR. ASHLEY: In view of the necessity for discussing the administration of the present Board of Admiralty, will the Prime Minister take steps to allot the usual number of days for Navy Votes, instead of cutting them short?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I must ask for notice of that Question.
    MR. BELLAIRS: When the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty says it is impossible to guarantee a complete casualty Return, is he not aware that there are three separate ways in which all casualties come before the Admiralty? It is the duty of the admiral in the first place, by regulation, to report to the Admiralty, then, secondly, all the collisions have to be logged, and copies of the log sent on; and, finally, the accounts for all repairs must be passed by the Admiralty.
    MR. McKENNA: No one is better aware than the hon. and gallant Member that many of the casualties are of such a trifling nature that they do not call for dockyard repairs, and are not, in fact, reported to the Admiralty. Consequently, there would be no opportunity for including them in the Return to which the hon. Member refers.
    MR. BELLAIRS: But is it not the duty of the officer in command to log and report every collision and every grounding?
    MR. McKENNA: Yes; but the collision may be of a kind which the captain may think it unnecessary to report to the Admiralty, and he does not do so.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Then I give notice that I will call attention to this matter upon the Navy Estimates. I will then cite cases where vessels have been repaired in dockyards, but which were not included in the Return. Did not the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty promise a Return for this year when he said His Majesty's ship "Angler" would be included in the 1908 Return?
    MR. McKENNA: At that time the form of the Return was under consideration by the Board, who have now come to the conclusion that it is undesirable to continue to publish the Return.
    MR. COCHRANE: Can we have a Return of all cases where dockyard repairs are necessary?
    MR. McKENNA: I will consider that point.
    MR. BOWLES: But is it not the fact that this Return has been ordered by the House of Commons?
    MR. McKENNA: It was only ordered for the year.
    LORD R. CECIL: Is it going to be presented for this year?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. There have been, I think, seven supplementary Questions to this one Question; and as these are 112 Questions on the Paper, I think others should have a chance.

    Cane Sugar Production.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the statistics of the average production of cane sugar in India and in the West Indies for the five years preceding and the five years succeeding the introduction of the countervailing duties in India.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): Statistics of the production of sugar in India before 1899, when countervailing duties were first introduced, are not available. The Return made to this House by the Board of Trade in August, 1907, No. 344, shows the sugar production of India since that year, and also of the several West India Islands since 1887.

    Disloyal Bengali Students.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether certain Bengali students holding Government scholarships at the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester wore in the classrooms medals in celebration of the Indian Mutiny; and, if so, whether they were ordered to remove such medals; and whether they continue to hold the Government scholarships.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State understands from the Principal of the College that certain Indian students did appear in the classrooms wearing a

    77
    medal with a disloyal inscription. They are not Bengalis, nor do they hold Government scholarships. The matter has been dealt with by the Principal in exercise of his disciplinary authority.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Are we to understand that the practice has been definitely put a stop to?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I hope so.

    Calcutta Model Liquor Shops.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: "I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Calcutta Excise Committee in favour of the acquisition of sites and the construction, at the cost of the Government, of a certain number of model buildings to be used as liquor shops; whether he will state the conditions upon which the proposal has been accepted by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal; and whether, in view of the direct implication of the Government in the liquor trade which such a scheme involves, he is in a position to state that the experiment will be confined to a limited area, and will not be regarded as a precedent for general application.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has seen the Report referred to. The Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal has directed that the proposal in question may be acted on in special cases, in which it is impossible otherwise to have proper sanitary safeguards, and an adequate supervision over the traffic. The sites chosen will be chosen with a view not to foster the traffic, but to control it. The experiment is confined to the Calcutta area, the conditions of which are quite exceptional.

    Poppy Cultivation in China.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the recent rescript of the Government of China ordering the entire cessation of the growth of poppy and the manufacture of opium therefrom throughout that Empire within two years, and in view
    78
    of the declared policy of His Majesty's Government to proceed pari passu with China in restricting the opium traffic, the Secretary of State for India will give orders that the planting of poppy in India during the coming autumn shall be materially further restricted.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State is not aware that a rescript abolishing poppy cultivation and opium production throughout China within two years was recently issued.

    New Indian Press Law.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the meaning of the words conditional order in the Indian Press Act VII., of 1908; what are the conditions to which such an order is subject; and whether its effect is to attach the Press or in any way to interfere with the publication of an offending newspaper before the persons concerned have been afforded the opportunity of appearing before the magistrate to show cause why the order should not be made absolute.
    MR. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, may I ask him whether indeed there is not yet time to make concessions in favour of those, who, after all, only incite others to murder our compatriots in India?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think the Question necessarily implies concessions to anybody. The words "conditional order" indicate that the order will not be capable of execution until it is made absolute. The effect of such an order is not of itself to attach the Press or interfere with the publication of a newspaper before the appearance directed by the order; such attachment would require a separate order under subsection (3) of Section 3.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, under the new Indian Press Act, in cases of emergency power is given to a single magistrate, who need not be a barrister, to attach by a summary order newspapers

    79
    and printing-presses without the proprietors or editors having been heard in their own defence; whether the Act provides who is to be the judge of the emergency; and whether there is any appeal to the High Court against such an order.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The text of the Act is in the hon. Member's hands and he is responsible for the paraphrase given in the first part of his Question. The magistrate to whom the application is made is the judge of the emergency. If, on the hearing of the case, the magistrate is not satisfied under Section 3 (6) of the Act he will set aside the order of attachment. An appeal lies by Section 5 to the High Court against any order of forfeiture which may follow upon attachment, and if the appeal is successful the order of attachment falls to the ground.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether under the new Indian Press Act, where an order absolute has been made by a single magistrate forfeiting a newspaper and printing-press, the order becomes, in all cases, operative in spite of an appeal to the High Court having been lodged by the defendant; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State will take steps to expedite the hearing of such appeals, and to provide that they be heard by a Court of not less than three Judges.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It is open to the High Court on receiving an appeal to suspend or otherwise to modify, pending the hearing of the appeal, any order of forfeiture. It is the invariable custom of the High Courts to deal promptly with criminal appeals, and no steps are necessary in order to expedite the hearing. It is not considered necessary to provide that appeals shall be heard by a Court of not less than three Judges.

    Indian Frontier War Medals.
    CAPTAIN ARTHUR MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a large number of officers and men engaged in the recent operations against
    80
    the Zakka Khel and Mohmands are already in possession of the 1895 India Medal (Queen's Head); whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend that a medal be granted to the troops engaged in those operations; and, if so, whether the Government will bear in mind the precedent established in connection with the granting of medals for service in Africa during His Majesty's reign, and will recommend that a King's Head Medal with distinctive ribbon be granted to all engaged in the operations referred to.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Answer to the first portion of this Question is in the affirmative. As regards the other portions, I am not in a position to make any statement.

    Union of the West Indian Colonies.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government, in view of the growth of opinion in favour of federation or unification of the West Indian Colonies since the matter was last debated in this House on 17th May, 1905, will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the advantages of, and the desire of the inhabitants for, such a policy and the means by which it could best be carried into effect.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The Secretary of State desires me to say that the question of closer union between the West Indian Colonies is engaging his attention, and that he will not fail to consider the suggested appointment of a Royal Commission when he has further studied the social, economic, and political conditions of those Colonies.

    Dinizulu
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state when he will be in a position to make a full statement respecting the proposed new Court to be constituted for the trial of Dinizulu; and whether he has yet received official information as to the date when

    81
    the preliminary investigation will be brought to a close.
    COLONEL SEELY: We are informed officially that the Attorney-General of Natal expects the preliminary examination to be finished within the next six weeks; and that in the event of the magistrate committing Dinizulu for trial, the Government will make every effort consistent with the requirements of the defence to expedite the commencement of the proceedings.

    Kingston Port.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will at once communicate with the Governor of Jamaica with reference to the desirability of taking advantage of the present opportunity, in the rebuilding of Kingston, Jamaica, to provide modern facilities in the port, and connect the Government railway with all the wharves.
    COLONEL SEELY: The Governor of Jamaica was in England very recently and the opportunity was then taken to discuss the question with him. He is known to have it under his consideration, and we are simply waiting for his advice. In these circumstances I do not think that the communication suggested by the hon. Member is necessary.

    Employment of Ceylonese.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the determination of His Majesty's Government to employ natives in preference to Englishmen in Ceylon is confined to that island, or whether this policy is to be extended to all Crown Colonies.
    COLONEL SEELY: What I stated on Tuesday in reply to the question of my hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham, was that it was the policy of the Ceylon Government and of successive Secretaries of State to pay every consideration to the claims of well-qualified Ceylonese to appointments in the Public Works Department of that Colony, and to give them a certain preference over Europeans with equal but not better
    82
    qualifications. Similar questions in respect of other Colonies must, of couse, be decided in accordance with the particular circumstances of each Colony.
    MR. ASHLEY: Is the same principle of giving preference to natives to be extended to all the Crown Colonies?
    COLONEL SEELY: I cannot add anything to what I have said. I believe it is the view that the natives of our Colonies should have some share in the administration, and this has been the policy of successive Secretaries of State.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Are we exploiting Ceylon for the benefit of Englishmen only?
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the proper term to use "Cingalese" or "Ceylonese?"
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Congo Trade—Native Rights.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House if the right of natives of the Congo to trade in any part of the Congo with merchants of all nationalities, named in the despatch dated 27th March last, as one of the changes required by His Majesty's Government in recognising a Belgian annexation of the Congo, is to be understood as applying to such articles as wild rubber, copal, and ivory, in which the natives are now debarred from trading, on the plea that these articles are the property either of the administration or of the concessionaires.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): His Majesty's Government contend that all concessions should be subject to native rights; that the natives must not be debarred from the enjoyment of the fruits of the soil in all territory owned or occupied by them; and that their right to trade in any part of the Congo extends to such articles as those mentioned in the Question. But ivory, it is generally recognised, may be the subject

    83
    of special regulations to prevent extermination of elephants.

    Russian Sugar Exports.
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can explain what the effect is of the reservation made by Sir Arthur Hardinge on behalf of His Majesty's Government that, although he had signed the Protocol of 19th December, 1907, restricting the export of Russian sugar, and thereby equally limiting the amount importable into this country, he nevertheless did not thus assent to the stipulation tending to restrict the exportation of Russian sugar.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The reservation referred to by the hon. Member was made in order to define the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the provisions of the Protocol. If no such declaration had been made, the signature affixed to the Protocol on behalf of His Majesty's Government might have been held to imply an acknowledgment of an obligation on the part of Great Britain, if called upon, to take part in action designed to secure that Russia should fulfil her obligations under Article 3 of the Protocol, or in an inquiry as to whether she was, in fact, at any future time, fulfilling these obligations. The declaration made it clear that His Majesty's Government were not prepared to participate in such proceedings. As I have already explained, His Majesty's Government regarded the arrangement as one which was not dependent on their consent, which could have been made without their consent, and which it was not in their power to prevent. They therefore considered that the utmost they could do was to free themselves from any possible obligation to close their ports to Russian sugar, which they have done by the declaration in question.

    Trawling in the Moray Firth.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements have yet been made with the Foreign Governments concerned to put a stop to trawling in the Moray Firth before the fishery grounds are destroyed; and, if not,
    84
    can he say what steps are being taken in the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned by me to the hon. Member for Elgin Burghs on the 4th instant, to which I have nothing to add.
    MR. MORTON: Bearing in mind the great importance of this to thousands of fishermen in the north of Scotland, will the right hon. Baronet expedite matters so that something may be settled?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am desirous of doing so, but there are several interests to be considered.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: Is it not a Department of our own administration with which the difficulty has arisen?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Departments concerned are discussing the question with the object of deciding what representations can be made to foreign countries in the interest of this country.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Baronet hold out any hope that this matter will be satisfactorily settled within the next twelve months?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I hope sooner than that.

    Great Britain and Montenegro.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, in view of the friendly relations which have always existed between Great Britain and Montenegro, this country remains the only one of the great Powers without a Legation at the Montenegrin capital.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The absence of a Legation of His Majesty at Cettinje is due simply to the fact that the amount of diplomatic business to be transacted with the Montenegrin Government does not appear sufficient to justify the expenditure required for the maintenance

    85
    of such an establishment. The present arrangement whereby the councillor of His Majesty's Embassy at Rome acts as Charge d' Affaires, and resides at Cettinje temporarily whenever his services are required, has proved satisfactory.

    Great Britain and Servia.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Minister at Belgrade maintains intimate personal relations with the Servian regicides, in violation of the assurances given that such relations would be carefully avoided; and whether, in view of the evidence laid before the State trial at Cettinje, implicating the Servian Crown and Government in a plot to assassinate the Prince of Montenegro and his family, the Government will consider the propriety of again severing diplomatic relations with Servia.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, His Majesty's Government are in possession of no evidence of the nature alluded to, and have no intention of making any change in the diplomatic relations existing between the two countries.

    The Khedive's Visit.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the present visit of the Khedive to this country is of an official character; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to discuss with the Khedive the petition, bearing more than 40,000 signatures, recently presented to him by Mohammed Farid Bey, leader of the Egyptian Nationalist Party, praying for the grant of a Constitution and a representative Assemby to Egypt.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The visit of the Khedive is of a private and not of an official character, and I can therefore make no Official statements about it.
    MR. KETTLE: Does the right hon. Baronet say that questions of international politics are never discussed in a private visit of one Sovereign to another?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I did not say that. I said I could make no official statement.

    The Ghezira Rebellion—Abdul Kader's Fate.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the respective dates of the trial and execution of Abdul Kader, leader of the rebellion at Ghezira, in the Soudan; was he allowed any appeal; whether the sentence included confiscation of Abdul Kader's property; and, if so, whether there was any proof that his family were implicated in the matters for which he was convicted.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Abdul Kader was tried on 8th May before a Civil Court, in accordance with the Soudan Penal Code, and was found guilty of murder and rebellion. He first invited Mr. Scott-Moncrieff and an Egyptian officer to interview him, and then murdered them in cold blood; and subsequently made an attack upon the Government forces which resulted in the death of two officers and several men. I am not aware that there is any right of appeal in such cases. The sentence included confiscation of his property. I do not know what members of his family were implicated. He is, so far, the only person who has been executed.
    MR. KETTLE: What were the dates of the trial and execution?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: He was tried on 8th May. I forget the exact date of the execution; it was shortly after.
    MR. KETTLE: Was it not a week after.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will inquires.

    Flogging Sentences in Egypt.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a policeman, by name Mohammed Elal, of Abdin district, was on 19th March last sentenced to twenty-five lashes and nine months imprisonment for accepting a bribe of 4 piastres, equivalent to about l0d.; if so, whether he will instruct the

    87
    British agent in Egypt to recommend the discontinuance of flogging for slight offences, and in this instance the release of the prisoner; and whether he can say if all information with regard to this case was withheld from the Press, although a bureau for the dissemination of official news exists in Egypt.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information as to the alleged occurrence. I have no reason whatever to suppose that the disciplinary measures taken by the Egyptian Government to secure efficiency and prevent abuses in the police force are excessive or that there is any justification for interfering with their discretion in the matter.
    MR. KETTLE: Will the right hon. Baronet cause inquiries to be made into this particular case?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir, not unless I have reason to suppose anything occurred which would justify our intervention.

    The Fighting in Persia.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the recent fighting in Teheran and unrest in Persia; and whether he is taking any steps to protect the lives, property, and interests of British subjects.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: On the 23rd His Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Teheran reported that the Shah had sent twenty Cossacks to arrest eight persons in a mosque which adjoins the Assembly House. The arrest was refused, and a shot was fired from the mosque. Guns were then used by the Shah's troops and a number of people killed. A further telegram of the 23rd stated that some twelve of the alleged leaders of the popular party had been arrested, including Seyyid Abdulla. The Assembly buildings and mosque had been cleared by the Shah's troops. The Assembly building, some shops and houses, including that of the Zil es Sultan, had been pillaged and a state of siege proclaimed. The Anjumens had dispersed. The losses
    88
    among the troops amounted to forty men; on the other side they were unknown, but reported to be small. The military Attache reported that the town was quiet, and there was as yet no signs of refugees taking "bast" in the British Legation. On the 23rd the Russian Minister and the British Charge d' Affaires sent their dragomans to the Shah to recall to His Majesty the assurances he had given in December, and to suggest that he should issue a proclamation announcing that he had no desire to abolish the Constitution; they also requested that the most stringent measures should be taken to maintain order and protect Europeans. The Shah, in reply to these requests, gave full assurances and ordered that special protection should be afforded to the telegraphs and the Imperial Bank of Persia. Yesterday Mr. Marling telegraphed that Teheran was quiet, and that he did not expect danger for Europeans. A number of refugees, including a deputy and five journalists, had, however, taken "bast" in the Legation. The Shah had arrested on the night of the 23rd thirty prominent members of the opposing party, mostly members of the Anjumens and journalists. The British and Russian Governments have instructed their representatives at Teheran to warn the Zil es Sultan against intriguing against the throne, and also to inform the Shah that any hostile action against the Medgliss and the Constitutional Party would receive no support from them.
    MR. LYNCH: May I ask whether the Russian officer who was in command of the Shah's troops during the events which culminated in the destruction of the Parliament House is now responsible for the maintenance of order in Teheran, and whether this officer and the other Russian officers in the Persian service are on the active list of the Russian army?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Russian, or any officer in command of Persian troops, is under the orders of the Persian Government, who are responsible for the maintenance of order in Teheran. I do not know whether the officer referred to or others are on the active list of the Russian Army; probably they are in

    89
    the same way as British officers are sometimes seconded for service in a foreign country.

    Seizure of a British Subject by Moors at Tetuan.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether he has received any report of the alleged seizure of Mr. Clark Kennedy, a British subject, by Moors, near Tangier; and what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in the matter.
    MR. LONSDALE: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information of the capture of Mr. Clark Kennedy, a British subject, by Moorish brigands near Tetuan; and what steps will be taken to procure his release.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have received no information beyond the bare fact of Mr. Clark Kennedy's capture. The British Chargéd' Affaires at Tangier has reported that he and the Vice-Consul at Tetuan are taking steps to secure his release.
    MR. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the declaration of His Majesty's Government that they are not responsible for the payment of ransom in the case of Raisuli's captures still holds good?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Certainly it holds good. It is intended as a warning that if people go to dangerous places they do so at their own risk. But in the case of a British subject being captured we should use what influence is in our power to obtain his release.

    Hamilton Spit Light.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the estimated cost of the lighted buoy to be placed by the Northern Lights Commissioners at Hamilton Spit, in the Island of Arran.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The estimated cost of establishing the
    90
    proposed gas lights buoy off Hamilton Spit is £350.
    MR. LAMONT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if this small expenditure had been incurred when I called the attention of the Board of Trade to the subject by means of a Question in March last year we should not have saved the £3,450 which it cost to repair H.M.S. "Commonwealth."

    District Railway Carriage Doors.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to frequent complaints on the part of travellers on the District Railway arising out of the confusion, delays, and inconvenience attending the use of sliding doors, which are also alleged to constitute a serious danger to the travelling public; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are informed by the railway company that they are preparing to change all the present pneumatic apparatus controlling the movement of the doors, so that the doors can be worked by hand.

    United Kingdom Pilots Association.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in fulfilment of the promise given by his predecessor in office during the debate on the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage Deduction for Propelling Power) Bill on 1st August last, he will meet the pilots of this country; and whether he will receive a deputation from representatives of the United Kingdom Pilots Association, who will be present in London on 2nd July for the purposes of their Annual Conference.
    MR. KEARLEY: My right hon. friend has, I understand, already intimated to the Association that he will be happy to receive the proposed deputation on 2nd July.

    Railway Rates for Beef.
    MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the fates per ton charged by the railway companies

    91
    for the carriage of meat from Glasgow, Aberdeen, Birkenhead, Manchester, Chester, Birmingham, and Norwich to the London Central Meat Market; and whether any reduction in rate is allowed by the railway companies to firms sending chilled and frozen meat from any of these towns which has been imported from America.
    MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have asked the railway companies concerned for this information and will communicate with my hon. friend when they have received it.

    Central Unemployed Committee.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has recently received a statement from the late superintendent of the women's workroom, at the Browning Settlement, Walworth Road, S.E., setting forth the circumstances of her dismissal by the Central Unemployed Committee, Women's Section, and appealing for an inquiry at his hands; whether he is aware that she alleges that the main charge of inefficient administration brought against her is entirely unfounded, and adduces proof in support; whether he is aware that the committee has refused to give her a hearing; and will he reconsider his refusal to investigate.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. MASTER- MAN,): The facts are generally as stated in the Question. The appointment and dismissal of the officers of the Central (Unemployed) Body for London is not a matter which is subject to any control on the part of the Local Government Board, and the Board could not undertake to investigate the complaint referred to.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Do the Local Government Board refuse to inquire into this matter, which involves not payment of the money but justice?
    MR. MASTERMAN: The officials of the Central Unemployed Committee do not take their appointments subject
    92
    to the control of the Local Government Board.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: But surely the Local Government Board has some influence with the Committee to see that justice is done?
    MR. MASTERMAN: We have no reason to think that justice has not been done.

    Imported Skimmed Milk.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a considerable portion of the condensed skim milk which is unfitted for the feeding of infants comes from Holland and Belgium; whether he can say what proportion of the 907,983 cwts imported, according to the Returns, in 1906 carne from these countries respectively; whether he is aware that it was established by the evidence given before the Butter Committee that in these countries a widespread system of scientific adulteration of butter and other dairy produce intended for exportation was carried on; and whether any steps are being taken, or will be taken, by the Board to inspect and analyse at the ports of entry or other places samples of this condensed milk.
    MR. MASTERMAN: I am aware that a considerable portion of the condensed skimmed milk imported into this country comes from the Netherlands. Not much appears to come from Belgium. The quantity of condensed milk imported in 1906 from the Netherlands was 638,004 cwts., and from Belgium, 46,371 cwts. These quantities, like the 907,983 cwts. mentioned in the Question, comprise every class of imported condensed milk, and not merely condensed milk which is separated or skimmed. I am not aware that there is a widespread system of scientific adulteration in Holland and Belgium as respects condensed skimmed milk. The article itself is very cheap. Samples are taken at the ports by the Customs officers, with a view to preventing condensed skimmed milk from being introduced without being properly labelled, and the Local Government Board have lately prepared Regulations under the Public Health (Regulations as

    93
    to Food) Act of last session, which, have already been issued in draft, and which provide for unsound food of all kinds being examined and dealt with, at the port of entry.
    MR. FLYNN: I have given the President of the Local Government Board a large amount of information on this. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large proportion of this condensed skimmed milk contains anything from 30 to 37 per cent, of beet sugar for the purpose of preservation and that such, an amount is deleterious to human health—particularly in the case of invalids and children?
    MR. MASTERMAN: I am aware it is deleterious for infants, and probably a case may be made out for issuing a regulation calling public attention to the fact.

    Territorial Army-Allowances for Substitution.
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in some cases under the new regulations Post Office employees who attend the encampments of the Territorial Forces will be required to pay more for substitutes at the Post Office than they would themselves receive as Post Office salary or wages during the period of the training; is he aware that no similar cases occurred under the Volunteer system; and will he so amend the Regulations that no employee under him will be a loser in excess of his pay from the fact that he attends an encampment of the Territorial Forces.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that, under the Regulations, as now authorised by the Treasury, the hardship indicated in the Question has been removed. No Post Office employee who receives special leave for training with the Territorial Forces will be required to pay towards the cost of his substitute any sum in excess of the amount of his civil pay.

    Early Morning Trains for Postal Employees.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the difficulty that a number of postal servants employed at St. Martin's-le-Grand, and living in the North of London, experience in getting to work at 5 a.m., seeing that the first train of the morning service is due to arrive at Aldersgate Street at 5.8 a.m.; and whether he will take up the matter with the Great Northern Railway Company with a view to getting them to run the train earlier, or to run another train to the City which would enable the men to get to work at 5 a.m.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No representation has been made to me on this subject. Post Office servants not infrequently apply through their associations, or direct, to the railway companies, when they think a case can be made out for additional or earlier train services.
    MR. WARDLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representations have already been made to the companies, and that there are over 1,000 post I employees who live in the North of London?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If any representations are made to me, I will inquire into them.

    Unclaimed Deposits in Scotch Banks.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that large sums of money are held by the Scottish banks on deposit receipts; that many of the thrifty of the working class invest their savings in that way; that the loss or mislay of the receipt destroys all evidence of the transaction except the evidence of the books of the banks; that no effort whatever is made by the banks to find the owners of these sums or their representatives; and that, ultimately, the money goes to enrich the shareholders of the banks; and whether, under these circumstances, he will institute a Departmental Inquiry into this matter.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I am aware

    95
    that considerable sums are invested in the manner described by my hon. friend, and I will cause inquiry to be made regarding the points raised in the latter part of the Question.
    MR. YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement that the banks make no efforts to find the owners of these sums——
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have said I will inquire.
    MR. WATT: May I ask—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Really, I think other hon. Members who have Questions on the Paper should have some chance.

    School Attendance in Stornoway.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state under what circumstances the father of a child living at Upper Bayble, Island of Lewis, has been summoned by the School Board of Stornoway to appear before the Sheriff for not sending his child to school, seeing that the child is under six years of age, and that she would have to walk six miles a day if she returned home for the midday meal.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Department have no information on the subject, and in any case the matter is one for the decision of the Sheriff and not of the Department.

    Scottish Fisheries—Steam-Propelled Vessels.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that out of 1,103 steam-propelled vessels engaged in the Scottish fisheries last year 287 were engaged in trawling, will he state how this latter figure compares with the number of steam trawlers employed during each of the five preceding years.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The figures are as follows—

    1902

    275

    1903

    280

    1904

    270

    1905

    266

    1906

    274

    Illegal Trawling—Gratuities for Fishermen.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that last year local fishermen materially assisted the Fishery Board for Scotland in securing the prosecution of persons engaged in illegal trawling, by detecting no less than twenty-six vessels thus occupied, will he consider the expediency of arranging for the award of gratuities to fishermen for services of this character.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The suggestion advanced by my hon. friend has been considered, but in my opinion it is inexpedient as a matter of public policy.

    Prosecutions for Illegal Trawling—New Police Cruiser.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of prosecutions for illegal trawling increased last year to 131, as compared with thirty-eight, the highest previous record; and, seeing that this points to a large increase in the number of persons who occupy themselves in destroying the means of livelihood of the line fishermen, will he state when the new sea police cruiser which was promised some time since is likely to be placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I must refer my hon. friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for St. Andrews Burghs.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the dimensions of the new vessel?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have not that information.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: The right hon. Gentleman has had time to get it by post.

    Legislation for the Suppression of Illegal Trawling.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the recently issued Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland shows that last year there were 131 prosecutions for illegal

    97
    trawling as compared with thirty-eight, the highest previous record, will he either introduce more drastic legislation for the suppression of illegal trawling or support the Bills which have been introduced by private Members for that purpose.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The number of prosecutions in 1907 was quite abnormal, owing to the number of cases reported to the authorities, as a consequence of the decision of the High Court of Justiciary bearing on the Moray Firth bye-law. In view of the negotiations which are proceeding the Secretary for Scotland does not consider the present an opportune time for legislation.

    Illegal Trawling by Foreigners.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, out of 131 prosecutions for illegal trawling ast year, no less than 100 were against the masters of foreign trawlers, ninety-six of whom were detected operating in the waters of the Moray Firth; and seeing that these foreigners have shown an indifference to the penalities inflicted, two masters having repeated the offence on eleven different occasions, one on eight occasions, three on six occasions, and two on four occasions, will he suggest to the Foreign Secretary the desirability of negotiating with the Powers under whose flag these vessels sail some arrangement under which persons of this character may have their certificates temporarily suspended.
    MR. SINCLAIR: There are objections to addition of penalities beyond those imposed by statute, and I do not see my way to approaching my right hon. friend on the lines suggested.

    Tuberculosis Prevention in Scotland.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the improved attitude of public opinion in Ireland on the subject of prevention of tuberculosis, due to the work of Lady Aberdeen; whether he is aware that public opinion in Scotland is maturing in favour of legislation; and whether he will introduce for Scotland a measure on the lines
    98
    of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the fact as stated, and will keep the matter in view, but I may refer my hon. friend to the Local Government Board's Circular of 10th March, 1906, and to the Public Health Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1907, from which it will be seen that every phase of pulmonary phthisis is already administratively provided for in Scotland by the existing public health legislation of that country. I may add that the Local Government Board are shortly to issue a second Memorandum indicating the progress that has been made in the administrative control of the disease during the last two years, and the Board have already consented to the adoption of the compulsory notification Act by nine local authorities.

    Tooma Shooting Outrage.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Patrick Lyons, of Tooma, County Leitrim, was recently shot; whether he can say if he is seriously injured, what arrests have been made, and what sentence passed; whether he is aware that cattle-drives recently took place in the district of Tuam, where the stock of a cattle owner, near Tullinadaly, consisting of 225 sheep and fourteen head of cattle were driven, and from a farm on the estate of Colonel Walter Nolan, where sixty-seven sheep and five cattle were driven; and what arrests have been made and what sentences passed.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The police authorities inform me that on 7th June, in County Leitrim, Patrick Lyons was fired at and seriously injured in the thigh, but is now progressing favourably. The accused person has been arrested, and the proceedings are pending. The cattle-drives referred to in the second part of the Question recently took place in the County Galway. No arrests have been made in those cases.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case of shooting arose in connection with an agrarian dispute? Do the Government intend to take no firm stand in regard to these matters, instead of allowing them to drift as they are doing?
    MR. BIRKELL: I am not aware of the circumstances under which the shooting occurred.

    Ballymahon, County Longford, Riot.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a local magistrate refused to sign the summonses prepared by the police in connection with the recent riot and unlawful assembly in the vicinity of Ballymahon, County Longford, and a resident magistrate had to be telegraphed for; and whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the action of the local magistrate, and what action, if any, he has taken.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that no local magistrate refused or was asked to sign summonses or any other document in connection with the case referred to. No summonses, in fact, were issued, but the resident magistrate issued warrants in the ordinary course. He was not telegraphed for.

    Outrages in Ireland in May.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many cases of outrages by the use of firearms, cattle-driving, boycotting, and other forms of intimidation, respectively, have been reported to the police during the month of May last, how many arrests were made, and what sentences were passed.
    MR. BIRRELL: During the month of May last seventeen offences were reported in which firearms were used. Five persons were arrested, of whom three have been returned for trial, one has been discharged, and the case against the fifth is pending. There were 139 cattle-drives during the month, 483 persons were arrested, of whom 447 were
    100
    bound to keep the peace, twenty-one were discharged, and fifteen were committed to prison in default of finding bail. On 31st May there were twenty-five cases of serious boycotting and 140 cases of minor boycotting. During the month there were thirty-nine cases of intimidation, mainly by threatening letters and notices. One arrest has been made, and the case is pending.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to modify his opinion that the state of Ireland is better than it has been for the last 600 years?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have heard that remark of mine referred to a great many times. I am quite prepared to modify it if you wish.

    Assault on an Estates Inspector at Dundrum.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an inspector to the Estates Commissioners was recently assaulted when going his rounds, handing over allotments, near Dundrum, Tipperary; what arrests were made and what sentences, if any, passed; whether he is aware that Mr. Walter Joyce, of Corgany House, County Gal-way, is rigorously boycotted, and can he state the reason; whether he is aware that firing outrages have recently occurred in Galway, when the house of a man named Slattery, employed as a labourer on the Lewis estate, near Wood-ford, was attacked, and near Tuam, when the house of a man named Martin Mohan, at Feeragh, was fired into; how many arrests have- been made in these cases; and what sentences have been passed.
    MR. BIRRELL: On 15th May the Estates Commissioners' inspector was engaged upon the Dundrum estate when several men came upon the land and assumed a threatening attitude towards him. No assault was committed, except that one of the men snatched a notebook from the inspector. Proceedings were taken against twelve persons, with the object of binding them to the peace, but the magistrates adjourned the case for six months in order to see how they

    101
    should behave in the meantime. Mr. Walter Joyce is boycotted, owing, the police understand, to differences with his tenants. On the night of 27th May two shots were fired into the house of John Slattery, and on the night of 6th May two shots were fired outside, but not into, the house of Martin Mohan. No arrests have been made in these cases.

    Irish Proclaimed Counties.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the recent action of the Lords Justices in proclaiming two more counties in Ireland was approved by the Lord-Lieutenant; and, if so, can he state the reasons for taking this step.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Lords Justices have full power to act during the absence of the Lord-Lieutenant, and therefore, the first part of the Question does not arise. The proclamations were issued with the object of appointing additional police, because the counties were in a state of disturbance arising mainly from cattle-driving.

    Judge Curran on Cattle-drives.
    CAPTAIN CEAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement made recently by County Court Judge Curran, in addressing the Grand Jury at Longford, when he stated that cattle-driving would never cease so long as the Government only bound to the peace those who were caught in the act, and that the test of the measures taken by the Government was found in the fact that there were no good results; that they had been binding people to keep the peace in many parts of Ireland but cattle-driving was still pursued, and that the attitude of the authorities tended to demoralise and dishearten almost everyone connected with the administration of justice in the country; that it disheartened resident magistrates and must tend to demoralise the police force; and what action, if any, the Government intend to take in order to restore law and order in the counties referred to.
    MR. BIRRELL: My right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland replied
    102
    to a Question on this subject yesterday. I have nothing to add to his reply, beyond saying that the Government do not agree with the opinions stated to have been expressed by the County Court Judge.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: As the Chief Secretary does not take so serious a view of these matters as we do, I will put a Question on the whole subject to the Prime Minister next Tuesday.

    Division of the Monaghan Estate Un- tenanted Lands, Galway.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when Messrs. Green and Stewart, inspectors of the Irish Land Commission, were recently engaged in allotting or laying out untenanted land on the Monaghan estate, County Galway, Heathlawn townland, for division amongst the adjoining owners, they were accompanied by Father Callanan and Father Donohue, Roman Catholic curates; was it the priests who, in fact, made the allotments, and amongst the allotments did Father Donohue himself get a substantial holding with a residence on it, and is he to be enabled to purchase by means of an advance; and was he a person previously having an uneconomic holding in the district or elsewhere.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners approved of a scheme for the distribution of the untenanted lands referred to in the Question, and on a subsequent date the two inspectors—amed were directed to attend on the lands and place the purchasers in possession in accordance with the scheme already settled. On the day on which they gave possession some 150 persons were present, including the agent of the estate, Rev. Father Callanan, and Rev. Father Donohue. The latter was not allotted any portion of the estate.

    Irish Intermediate Education.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the adoption of a system mainly founded upon inspection in connection with intermediate education in Ireland, whether the objection of the Irish Government

    103
    to the appointment of a permanent inspectorate in conformity with the recommendations of the Report of the Commission in 1899 and with the provisions of the Act of 1900, is founded upon financial considerations or upon other grounds; and whether, in view of the anxiety in Ireland as to the future of intermediate examination, the Government will consent to the publication of the correspondence between the Intermediate Education Board and the Irish Government on this subject.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already informed the hon. Member that this entire matter is engaging my attention, and that I hope the appointment of inspectors can shortly be arranged. In these circumstances, I do not think that any advantage could be gained by entering further into the reasons why a permanent inspectorate has not yet been appointed, or by publishing the correspondence referred to.
    MR. FLYNN: Then the correspondence is not to be published?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think it desirable.
    MR. FLYNN: Was the delay in the appointment of this permanent inspector due to the action of the Treasury?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, not on this occasion.

    Athenry Shooting Outrage.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 14th June, about 10.30, when a man named John Burke, of Rock-field, near Athenry, was entering his residence, several shots were fired at him, one of which hit him in the face, inflicting very serious injuries, and that being unable to get in by the front he turned to get in by the back door, when a second volley was fired at him; whether he is aware that the cause of the dispute which led to such serious consequences was Burke's purchase of a small plot of land on the Lambert Minors estate; what arrests have been made and sentences passed on the perpetrators of the outrages.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that two gunshots were fired at John Burke on the occasion in question. He was not hit by the first shot, but at the second shot he was struck in the head and the upper part of his body by about thirty pellets of shot. The injuries were serious, but his life is not in danger. It is the fact that Burke had been allotted a farm on the estate of Lambert Minors, but whether this fact afforded a motive for the offence can only be a matter for conjecture. The police have so far been unable to discover the offenders.

    McCartie Estate, Headfort, County Kerry.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the sale of the McCartie estate at Headfort, County Kerry is not yet concluded after three years having elapsed since the purchase agreements were signed; whether the action of Judge Ross in refusing the terms of the Estates Commissioners as to he sale of untenanted land on the estate is the principal cause of the delay; and whether, having regard to the number of uneconomic holdings on the estate, he Dan take any steps to carry out the intentions of Parliament by having the untenanted land on the estate made available.
    MR. BIRRELL: The McCartie esate is for sale in the Land Judge's Court, and I am informed that the assumption that there is untenanted land on the estate is incorrect. The Estates Commissioners made an offer to the Land fudge for the purchase of the estate, a condition of the offer being that a certain holding should be sold to them as untenanted land. The Land Judge could hot lawfully accept this condition, as the holding was in the possession of a tenant. The Estates Commissioners have since reconsidered the matter, and have now made an amended offer which will be considered by the Land Judge.

    Appeals under the Labourers (Ireland) Act.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord -Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware hat there has not been any High Court

    105
    judicial decision as to the construction of the word "interested" in Section 6, subsection 2, of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906 the governing word as to right of appeal from a Local Government Board inspector's order; whether he will consider the advisability of the provision of machinery by the Local Government Board and County Court Rules for bringing an appeal by an applicant rejected by the inspector as being interested; whether, seeing that these respective rules made no such provision, he will have them amended in the desired manner; and whether, in view of the urgency of pending cases, he will expedite the making of the Amendment in question.
    MR. BIRRELL: No judicial decision has been given as to the interpretation of the term "person interested" in the subsection quoted in the Question. The generally accepted and indeed obvious interpretation of the term, namely, as meaning a person interested in the lands specified in the Order, has not been questioned in a Court of law. I understand that a proposal to give the labourer a right to appeal against the rejection of his representation for a cottage was fully considered when the Bill was passing through Parliament, and was rejected. The Government are not prepared to introduce the suggested Amendment, for which no necessity has been shown. Its adoption would involve great expense, and would seriously delay if not completely block operations under the Act.

    Knockanes (Kerry) Evicted Farm.
    MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the landlord did actually agree to leave the question as to whether there should be a sale of the evicted farm of Denis Healy, of Knockanes, county Kerry, to the planter in possession of the same to the decision of the Estates Commissioners; whether the Commissioners, in opposition to the wish of the landlord and of all others concerned, insisted upon carrying out the sale to the planter; whether the result of their action is that a police hut and four policemen have to be maintained on the farm at the public expense; whether the Commissioners are aware that Denis Healy has been
    106
    committed to the lunatic asylum since their decision, and his wife left in a miserable hut near the farm in a condition of extreme poverty; and how or when they propose to afford any relief to Mrs. Healy.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner was willing that they should adopt any course they deemed proper in this case. As the hon. Member has already been informed, they sanctioned an advance for the purchase of the holding to Timothy Kennedy, who was not a planter, but possessed a legal interest in the holding which had been acquired by purchase. Kennedy receives police protection, but the police hut at Knockanes does not exist solely for that purpose. The neighbouring district is policed from the station. It is the case that Denis Healy has been committed to a lunatic asylum, but I am informed that his committal was due to quite other causes than those connected with the evicted farm. The Estates Commissioners have no means of affording relief to Mrs. Healy.
    MR. J. MURPHYasked whether, in view of the difficulties from which Mrs. Healy was now suffering, something could not be done for her.
    MR. BIRRELL: Unless the Commissioners can buy land, they can nothing.

    Evictions in Ireland.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that during the quarter ended 31st March, 1908, twenty tenants were actually evicted, and 290 tenants deprived of all legal interest in their holdings, under Section 7 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1887, including 110 tenants in the province of Ulster; and whether, in view of the general adoption of a system of land purchase in Ireland and the large number of tenants who are annually deprived of all legal property in the holdings they cultivate, the Irish Government will take steps to repeal this section in the promised amended land legislation.
    MR. BIRRELL: The figures quoted in the Question are correctly taken from

    107
    the Returns presented to Parliament. It is, however, incorrect to say that the 290 tenants who were served with notices under the section quoted have been deprived of all legal interest in their holdings, seeing that the section provides a right of redemption which may be exercised within a period of six months, and upon such exercise all rights are restored to the tenant. The Government do not propose to repeal the section referred to for the reasons of which I fully informed the hon. Member in reply to his similar Question of 6th March, 1907.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the exercise of this Section 7—commonly called the "Eviction-made-easy" Clause—thousands of tenants have lost all legal right to their holdings
    MR. BIRRELL: My information is that only about 5 per cent. of the persons who receive notice actually go, the great majority exercising the right of redemption within the six months' grace.
    MR. FLYNN: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even in cases where there is no physical eviction the tenants lose their legal status?
    MR. BIRRELL: If they are not physically evicted they have six months' grace and in the vast majority of cases they do redeem their holdings in that time. Of course, they suffer to a certain extent.

    Irish Excursion Train Incident.
    MR. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the stoppage of an excursion train in the Goraghwood Tunnel near Newry, on the 18th instant, and to the panic caused thereby amongst the passengers; and whether he has received any report on the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have received a police report upon the incident in question, which occurred on Saturday, the 20th instant. It appears that a heavily-laden excursion train came to a standstill
    108
    in Goraghwood Tunnel, the engine not being sufficiently powerful to pull the train up the incline. The train was then backed to Goraghwood Station. Some excitement was caused amongst the passengers, but no person was injured.

    Belfast Hibernians Excursion.
    MR. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the attack made on the special train conveying the Belfast Hibernians from Newry, at Donegall Road, Belfast, on Sunday night last; whether he is aware that the Hibernians were subjected to a fierce fusillade of stones and many of them had narrow escapes from injury, and that the line for some distance was under police protection, but the bridge at Donegall Road was left unprotected; whether any arrests have been made; and what steps, if any, have been taken to bring the guilty persons to justice.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that no attack whatever was made upon the excursion train from Newry on last Sunday, but that in the neighbourhood of the bridge at Donegall Road on that day a stone was thrown at another excursion train which was returning from Buncrana. A window of a carriage was broken by the stone. The person who threw the stone was not seen. The police were on duty upon the bridge and at other points along the line, in the neighbourhood of Belfast, but saw no attack made upon the train.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: What were the Belfast Hibernians doing that day?
    MR. BIRRELL: Their duty, I hope.
    MR. DEVLIN: If the police were not on duty on the spot how do they know a stone was thrown?
    MR. BIRRELL: They saw the broken window.

    Rathruddy Outrage.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any information respecting an outrage with firearms at the dwelling-house of a

    109
    farmer living near Rathruddy, on Saturday, 13th June; and whether any arrests were made in connection with the occurrence.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police inform me that on the night of the 12th instant, shots were fired into the house of Michael Glynn at the place named in the Question. The police have not succeeded in discovering the offenders, and consequently no arrests have been possible.

    Ennis Cattle Outrage Claim.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the County Court at Ennis, on 16th June, damages were awarded for the cutting off of the tails of a number of cattle; and whether in any of these cases the persons who committed the outrage were discovered and prosecuted.
    MR. BIRRELL: On 12th June, at the County Court at Ennis, compensation, amounting in all to £23, was awarded to four persons for malicious injury to their cattle by cutting off portions of the animals' tails. In three of the cases the cattle were on the same farm, and the injury was committed at the same time. The offenders were not discovered in either of the cases.
    MR. LONSDALE: Did not Judge Bodkin say that a more cowardly and disgraceful outrage never came before him?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no desire to quarrel with the learned Judge's language.

    Gowel (Leitrim) Cattle-drive.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been decided not to proceed further with the charges against eighteen men from the Gowel district, County Leitrim, of driving cattle, off a grazing farm at Kiltoghert on Easter Monday; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for this decision.
    MR. BIRRELL: The men in question were summoned to give sureties to keep the peace. The case was heard at Carrick-on-Shannon Petty Sessions, on
    110
    28th May, when the magistrates were equally divided in opinion and the case was consequently adjourned. It has since been decided not to proceed further with the case, seeing that there has been no renewal of cattle-driving in the locality during the past two months.
    MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope to put down cattle driving by the display of such leniency?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am of a hopeful disposition.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: How long are you going to be hopeful?

    Armagh Boycotting Case.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the case of Matthew M'Dermott of Annagh, County Sligo, who has been boycotted for years because he refused to give up land which he purchased openly through the Land Commission seven years ago, and although he did not let it on the eleven months system; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that about four years ago Matthew M'Dermott purchased from the Court of Chancery a farm upon an estate in Sligo. He was partially boycotted for several years, but for the past twelve months has been free from boycotting, and no opposition was shown to him until his cattle were driven off his farm last month. The police will continue to afford all necessary protection to M'Dermott, as they have done hitherto.
    MR. O'DOWD: Is it not the fact that M'Dermott has been unanimously returned for trial by the local bench on a criminal charge?
    MR. BIRRELL: I know nothing about that.
    MR. O'DOWD: It is the fact.

    Glensharrold Estate, Ardagh.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if

    111
    he can say whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that the estate of Mr. O'Grady Delmege, situate at Glensharrold, Ardagh, in the County of Limerick, was one of the Campaign estates, and that there is a large number of uneconomic, holdings on it which, if purchased by the tenants without their being enlarged, would afford them no means of a decent living, and consequently would be no security for the purchase money advanced, and, having regard to these facts, and to the fact that there is a large area of mountain in the landlord's occupation, part of which is let for turbary every year, whether they will not sanction any agreement for the sale of this estate, without having the small holdings made economic and the landlord's portion of the mountain fairly partitioned among the tenants; and whether, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this estate, they will send down an inspector to make full inquiries into its position and try and arrange a sale on the lines suggested.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate in question is not one of the so-called plan of campaign estates which were reported on by the Evicted Tenants Commission of 1893, and that until proceedings for sale have been instituted before the Commissioners, and the case is reached in order of priority, they cannot see their way to send an inspector to visit the property. The Commissioners, however, will consider the several matters referred to in the Question if and when the estate comes before them to be dealt with.

    Irish Mail Disputes.
    MR. MULDOON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Post Office, in a case of complaint by the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland against the Postmaster-General in relation to the carriage of Irish mails, has refused to accept service in Ireland; whether this refusal is based upon the alleged ground that, under the 65th Rule of the Railway and Canal Commission, 1889, the Crown is domiciled
    112
    in England; if so, whether the effect of this contention of the Post Office is that the Crown is not domiciled in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland railed Ireland; and, if this be the fact, at what precise date did the Crown cease to be so domiciled.
    I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in all cases of Irish and Scottish railway and other companies having disputes as to the remuneration for carrying mails with the Post Office, the Department requires that such disputes shall be heard in England, upon the ground that the domicile of the Crown, under the 65th Rule of the Railway and Canal Commission, 1889, is in England; whether, seeing that this practice had a prejudicial effect upon the shareholders in such Irish and Scottish companies, as well as the public in those countries, he will say whether this practice is insisted upon in the interests and for the convenience of the permanent officials of the Post Office in London; and whether he will take any steps to prevent the inconvenience involved in currying out this procedure.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Attorney-General for Ireland has asked me to reply to the hon. Member's Question addressed to him as well as to that addressed to myself. The 65th Rule of the Railway and Canal Commission to which the hon. Member refers provides that proceedings before the Commissioners shall take place in England where the defendent has his principal place of business or head office in England. The principal place of business or head office of the Postmaster-General is unquestionably in England; and, consequently uner the Rules of the Commission claims by Irish and Scottish railway companies against the Postmaster-General for remuneration for the carriage of mails are heard in England. On this ground, the solicitor of the Post Office in Ireland was instructed to refer the claim of the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland to the General Post Office in London. No question of domicile arises in connection with claims

    113
    preferred before the Railway Commissioners against the Postmaster-General. I am not aware that any prejudicial effect has arisen from the operation of the Commissioners' rules.

    Discharges of Telegraph Messengers in Ireland.
    MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the hardship involved in the case of telegraph messengers being discharged, on attaining the age of sixteen years, at Belfast and Derry; whether it is the case that at present in one or other of these offices some of the men are doing double work; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to finding other work for the boys so discharged.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Unfortunately, I cannot avoid the necessity of dispensing with the services of a number of telegraph messengers at the age of sixteen. Any overtime which is being worked at Belfast and Derry is of a temporary nature, and it is, in my opinion, undesirable to offer such work to messengers who have been dispensed with, as it would interfere with their opportunities of obtaining permanent situations outside the service. No suitable boys are discharged for whom there is a prospect of full-time adult employment being found within a reasonable time.

    The Master of the Horse—Post Office Administration.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister under which statute the Postmaster-General has power to appoint a Minister assistant; and which statute empowers the Master of the Horse to sign official documents.
    MR. ASQUITH: Lord Granard was asked to assist the Postmaster-General by the late Prime Minister, and was not appointed to do so by the Postmaster-General. With reference to the second Question, the Postmaster-General informs me that Lord Granard does not sign any official document which requires the signature of the Postmaster-General; and of course the Postmaster-General is responsible to Parliament for all that is
    114
    done in his Department. There does not appear to be anything in the arrangements which have been adopted that requires statutory authority.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman was considering the question of the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Post Office in view of the large increase in the work of that Department.
    MR. ASQUITH: I agree that that requires consideration, and it is under consideration in connection with the general question of the re-arrangement of Government offices.

    Indian Reforms.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when His Majesty's Government purpose submitting to the House any measures of reform for India.
    MR. ASQUITH: The consideration of measures of reform by the Government of India in consultation with the local Governments is drawing to a close, and the result is shortly to be submitted to the Secretary of State for India. His Majesty's Government will then decide upon the course best calculated to further the objects in view. It is impossible to fix a precise date.
    MR. REES: Arising out of this Answer, may I ask the Prime Minister whether such reforms will operate only in India, or whether they will deal with the encouragement afforded in the United Kingdom to agitation against our rule in India?
    [No Answer was returned.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A. (in respect of the Access to Mountains Bill); Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Rose; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill); Mr. Idris and Mr. Lane-Fox.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A. the following Fourteen Members (in respect of the University of Durham Bill): Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Hills, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Butcher, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Mallet, Mr. Nuttall Sir John Tuke, Sir Henry Craik, Mr' George Marks, Mr. Scarisbrick, Mr' Silcock, Mr. Hemmerde, and Mr. Verney'
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A. the following Fourteen Members (in respect of the Infant Life Protection (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Cooper, Mr. Walters, Mr. Simon. Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Shackleton, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Farrell, Mr. John Phillips, Major Ratcliff, Sir Benjamin Stone, and Mr. Du Cros.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B. (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Mr. Joseph Walton and Sir Henry Kimber; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Staveley Hill, and Mr. Wedgwood.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Prevention of Crime Bill): Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Kearley, and Sir Edward Strachey; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Attorney-General
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTOX GURDOX further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C. the following Fourteen Members (in respect of the Prevention of Crime Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Llewelyn Williams, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Akers-Douglas, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Rawlin son, and Mr. Talbot.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C. (in respect of the Telegraph Construction Bill): Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Kearley, Sir Edward Strachey, and Sir Francis Edwards; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill); Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Lyulph Stanley.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C. the following Fourteen Members (in respect of the Telegraph Construction Bill): Mr. Wardle, Mr. O'Malley, Mr. Patrick White, Mr. John Ward, Sir Henry Seymour King, Mr. Harold Cox, Mr. Agnew, Sir Edward Tennant, Mr. Armitage, Mr. Bethell, Major Dunne, Mr. Mackarness, Lord Balcarres, Mr. Court-hope, and Mr. Staveley-Hill.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  COMPANIES BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 281.]
  NEW BILL.
    POLICE COUNTY AUTHORITIES BILL.
    "To confer upon the Police authority in counties certain powers and responsibilities similar to those now vested in Watch Committees in boroughs," presented by Sir Charles Schwann; supported by Sir John Brunner, Mr. Brodie, Mr. King, Mr. Nuttall, and Mr. Schwann; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]

    SUPPLY [13TH ALLOTTED DAY].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1908–9.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £11,600, be

    117
    granted to His 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, 1909, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Office, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund."
    MR. GULLANDsaid he wished to call the attention of the House to a matter of great importance, viz., the position and work of the office of Secretary for Scotland. Many Scottish Members had brought forward in that House complaints about the delay in the administrative work of the Secretary for Scotland, such as, for instance, the Edinburgh Water Trust Provisional Order, the question of the recent appointment of professors in Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities, where the chairs were vacant for nearly six months, the ever present and ever pressing trawling question, which still remained unsettled, and the question of the treatment of the unemployed in Glasgow. He did not wish to discuss the rights or the wrongs of those questions. His point was to show that there were those grievances, and to draw attention to what he believed to be the reason for them. He maintained that the Secretary for Scotland and his Department were overworked, and that there was put upon that Department far too much pressure. He would briefly remind the Committee of the history of the appointment of the Secretary for Scotland. After thirty years agitation the office was created by Act of Parliament in 1885, and the Secretary was given a salary of £2,000. His duties had been increased by subsequent Acts, and they were constantly growing. In 1894, by statute the right hon. Gentleman was appointed President of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and to-day he was responsible to the House for a large number of public Departments. There was the Scottish Education Department, the Prisons Commission, the Fishery Board, the Lunacy Commission, the Crofters Commission,
    118
    the Congested Districts Board, and the National Galleries Board, and, moreover, he was entrusted with a great deal of patronage, much of which in England fell within the Department of either the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor. He had general charge of the work of the town and county councils, and he had a great deal of work in connection with Private Bills' Procedure and Provisional Orders. He had control of the constabulary in Scotland, he had the question of land valuation, and he had also to deal with river pollution, and to administer the Inebriates Acts. Under that head he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when they might expect to hear of the appointment of the Committee on the Inebriates Acts, promised some weeks ago. He had also general charge of the Universities of Scotland, and the House last year passed a Bill creating the Scottish Department of Agriculture, which would also be under the charge of the right hon. Gentleman. Another difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman was subjected to was that he had two addresses. Much of his work had to be done in London, but the administration was concerned with Scotland, and that involved extra work and a great deal of travelling. He did not think that that was an ideal system of managing Scottish business. He was afraid that if he said the only proper ultimate solution of administering those affairs was by a Parliament in Scotland, he would be ruled out of order, so he would refrain from dwelling on that subject; but as long as Scottish affairs were administered from London they should be administered properly. The work done by the Secretary for Scotland was done for England, not by one Member of the Government, but by several. There were the Home Secretary, the President of the Local Government Board, the President of the Board of Education, and the President of the Board of Agriculture, and most of those officers had two representatives in the House of Commons. There were the Home Secretary and the Under Home-Secretary.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be advocating a rearrangement of offices, and that is out of order. All

    119
    that he can deal with here is the administration of the office of Secretary for Scotland.
    MR. PIRIEsaid that the Secretary for Scotland was responsible, and if they could not criticise his administration on the present Vote what opportunity would they have to do so?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Local Government Board for Scotland and the Fishery Board cannot be discussed on this Vote, nor can the Universities Grant.
    MR. GULLANDsaid he must content himself with saying that under the existing system it seemed to be impossible for the Secretary for Scotland to carry out the administrative work in the way it should be done. The administrative work of the right hon. Gentleman had to be carried on along with his legislative work, and in the pressing times in which they were living, when Bills rained upon that House, the right hon. Gentleman had so much of his time taken up in attending to his legislative duties that, having no Under-Secretary to leave at the office in his absence, the administrative work of Scotland did not get the attention it deserved. Then a great deal of his time was taken up by receiving and listening to deputations; that of itself was an enormous labour, and even his holidays were spent studying the land question or the fishing question, so that really his whole time was given to the administrative work of his Department. He was afraid he could not suggest an adjustment of the duties, and the appointment of an Under-Secretary, but he felt, when the Prime Minister told them earlier in the session that there was to be an inquiry into the readjustment of duties in other Departments, that this was an opportunity to bring that question under his notice.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This is not in order.
    MR. GULLANDsaid he was glad the Chairman had given him the opportunity of saying as much as he had. What was true about the Secretary for Scotland was true also about his staff; they also were overworked. The Scottish Members, when
    120
    they went to the Scottish Office, received courteous and usually satisfactory treatment, but he imagined that that office was under-staffed, and he thought that the salaries, as compared with those of other offices, seemed low. When they went to the Scottish Office they were always referred to the Assistant Under-Secretary, a splendid official, and perhaps the most ubiquitous official now serving the Government, but all the affairs of Scotland had to come under his purview. He also was burdened with too much administrative work, and there was put on him, in a session like the present, an enormous amount of work in the drafting and re-drafting of Bills—not only Scottish Bills, but every possible Bill that in any kind of way applied to Scotland. Then there was the duty put upon the Secretary for Scotland of answering the Questions that Scottish Members raised. That day there were no fewer than fifteen Questions, and they gave the right hon. Gentleman a great deal of trouble to find out the facts and to put them so well before the House. He saw now that another part of his administrative work was the answering of unstarred Questions of English and Irish Members who appealed to him to enlighten them as to the more perfect Scottish system of carrying through numerous matters. They grumbled about the delay in the administrative work, and he believed there was reason for grumbling, but he did not think they had a charge against the right hon. Gentleman personally; it was because Parliament had put on him so much work that it was impossible for him to give——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must really ask the hon. Member to carry out my ruling.
    MR. GULLANDremarked that he had said all he had to say, and he pointed out in conclusion that when that administrative work of the right hon. Gentleman was so great it was very difficult for the affairs of Scotland to get the treatment to which they were entitled.
    MR. PIRIEsaid he wished to criticise the administrative functions of the Secretary for Scotland and the administrative deficiencies of the office. Everyone would recognise that

    121
    there was nothing personal in what he had to say. On the contrary, the objections he had to state were to the present system, and not to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland in dealing with the administrative duties he had to carry out. He wished to prove how since the appointment of the Secretary for Scotland the natural development of democratic government had brought about the present situation. and must inevitably bring about a further development of the grievances which were felt in relation to the treatment of Scotland. It appeared that immediately after the Union the office of Secretary for Scotland existed for about fifty years, after which it was abolished. In 1853 an agitation was begun for the restoration of the office which had been abolished about a hundred years before. The same arguments were used in the House of Commons then against the restoration of the office as were used now when the Scottish Members urged that they should get greater independence when dealing with exclusively Scottish affairs. They were told that to restore the office of Secretary for Scotland would be undermining the Union. Anything more fallacious he really could not conceive. In 1883 and 1884 Bills were introduced by Mr. Gladstone to restore the office of Secretary for Scotland, and at last in 1885 the office was restored. In 1887, still further powers were given to the office by the then Conservative Government, and in 1894 further duties were put on the over-worked official.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is exactly upon the same lines as I have already ruled to be out of order. The hon. Member must not proceed upon those lines.
    MR. PIRIEsaid he would try to deal with the actual matters which had come before the House in the form of Questions which the Secretary for Scotland himself had been obliged to answer from his place. The other day the Secretary for Scotland was asked as to the length of time occupied by the correspondence which had taken place between the Board of Agriculture and the Fishery Board in regard to the trawling question. The hon. Member skilfully avoided giving a direct answer
    122
    to the Question. If hon. Members would refer to Hansard of 1897 and 1898 they would find that exactly the same Questions were put in regard to trawling in the Moray Firth as were being put at the present time.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This comes under the Vote for the Fishery Board.
    MR. PIRIEsaid he was dealing with the Answers given by the Secretary for Scotland to Questions put in this House. If Scottish Members were not to be allowed—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entirely out of order. There is a separate Vote for fisheries, and matters connected with fisheries have to be discussed upon that Vote, and not upon this one.
    MR. MORTONon the point of order, said that the question of trawling in the Moray Firth in so far as it related to the operations of foreign trawlers could surely be discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland. They were told that day by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he was waiting apparently for the Secretary for Scotland to move and give some assistance.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Whatever the Secretary for Scotland is responsible for in connection with fisheries comes upon the Fisheries Vote, which is the next Vote to this, and whatever the Foreign Secretary is responsible for comes upon the Foreign Secretary's Vote.
    MR. MORTONasked whether the action of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to fisheries could not be discussed on the Vote for his salary.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No, it is always the case when you have a separate vote and a separate subject to have the discussion upon that Vote. This Vote is for the office of the Secretary for Scotland, and any subject in regard to fisheries must be discussed on the Fisheries Vote. Matters relating to the work of the Secretary of State for

    123
    Foreign Affairs can only be discussed on the Foreign Office Vote.
    MR. PIRIEsaid that that was most unfortunate. It was another example showing the difficulty Scottish Members had in calling attention to matters relating to the administration of Scottish affairs. They were driven from pillar to post. They only had about six hours for the discussion of these matters when the salary of the Secretary for Scotland was put down, and it was most unfair that they should not be allowed to discuss them. He must enter his emphatic protest against a method of procedure which rendered it impossible for——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not speak in that way.
    MR. PIRIE: I maintain what I say.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is precisely because the hon. Member is not taking advantage of his opportunity that I have called him to order.
    MR. WEIRsaid it was not for the Scottish Members to advocate the cause of the Secretary for Scotland. His amount of work and his salary were his look-out. If he did not want the job he need not take it. The Scottish Members were entitled to have their work properly and efficiently done. He personally had every reason to complain of the way in which his questions with regard to the migration of cottars were answered. He wished once more to call attention to the condition of affairs in the island of Lewis. In Lewis cruel evictions had been carried out in the past, and, though in the last year the landlord had stayed his hand, at any moment there might be an outbreak of the troubles there with disastrous results. He insisted that serious attention should be given to the subject. Again and again they were told the matter was under consideration, and meantime congestion went on, and nothing was done. Deer forests increased, and men and women suffered and starved. It was not legislation but administration he asked for. Under the Act of 1897 the Secretary for Scotland had the machinery for migration, but he did not put that machinery
    124
    in motion. It was repugnant to his feelings to make the charge of neglect; but the delay was inexcusable, and he had pledges in writing that a scheme would be ready early in June. Promises of land reform had been many before the general election; but nothing had been done but the bringing forward of an impossible Bill for vote-catching purposes. ["Hear, hear," and "Oh, oh!"] He had good reason for what he said. Another subject he desired to refer to was the state of matters in the island of Vatersay. There was arising the repetition of an old story, and the trouble grew out of the old idea of landlords that they should control their tenants body and soul. ["No."] Yes, he knew the Highlands and Hebrides well, and Lady Gordon Cathcart inherited the old traditions, and seemed to think she should decide upon the occupation her tenants should follow, that they should go fishing, and not cultivate their patches of land. This lady would, if she could, forcibly deport the cottar and squatter families as Colonel Gordon did in 1851. Most distressing stories had been told him of the action then taken, but thank God a landlord could not now exercise such power, and he heartily hoped that the Lord Advocate would adhere to his determination not to allow the forces of the Crown to be used for such dirty work. The land at Vatersay was under a lease which expired in 1907, and Lady Gordon Cathcart entered into an arrangement in August, 1906, to grant a fresh lease, utterly disregarding the wishes and requirements of the people. How could these poor cottars clear off from an island in the Atlantic like Barra? The Highlands were rapidly becoming a vast deer forest, and he regretted that the Secretary for Scotland did not rouse himself to the importance of keeping this fine race of people on the laud. The right hon. Gentleman followed a laissez faire policy, and said it would all come right. It did not all come right. There had been a big row, and there would be a bigger row presently, and ten men were lying in Edinburgh gaol as a consequence of laissez faire policy. He was a lover of law and order, but there were times when men could not stand it any longer. This land was occupied by their forefathers, and they had a better right to it than Lady Gordon Cathcart. The land in dispute was sheduled by the Deer Forests Commission as suitable for crofts.

    125
    Both Governments had been equally bad, and grossly neglectful in this matter. Lady Gordon Cathcart appealed to the Government to enforce the Trespass Act of 1863, but the Government refused and referred her to the civil Courts. He was thankful to the Lord Advocate for not sending gunboats, but Lady Gordon Cathcart made a fierce attack on him because he did not make an apology and go down on his knees and beg her pardon. He had never heard of a Minister of the Crown written to in that high-handed fashion, and was glad that, while treating her with the utmost respect and courtesy, he refused to apologise for what he said in the House. He hoped that he would continue to pursue that firm attitude. Lady Gordon Cathcart asked the Government either to enforce the law or to buy the farms. He hoped that they would not allow dictation of that kind to come from any Highland landlord. He wished that they had twenty or thirty men from Scotland to stand shoulder to shoulder like the Labour Members. They had done much since they came into the House, and he said with all his heart. "God bless them," and hoped that they would go on. But the Scotsmen did not stand together. He had often noticed that if there was a chance of getting any money out of the British Exchequer, Nationalists, Tories, and Labour Members stood together to get as much as they could, but the Scottish Members failed to do so. In 1899 he moved an Amendment to the Queen's Speech asking for legislation for the cottars, crofters, and fishermen in the Highlands and islands of Scotland. The late Prime Minister and every right hon. Gentleman now on the Treasury Bench went into the lobby with him and 142 Members voted for the Amendment and 145 against. Six more votes on that occasion and the Tory Government would have been beaten. He thought he was entitled nine years afterwards to come and ask the Government to do something for these poor cottars, crofters, and fishermen. The Government had been asked to reduce the sentence on these men, but there was no reprieve for men who interfered with the land laws. He asked for something to be done for these unfortunate people, and unless something was done speedily for the Highlands he believed that many more men would be put into
    126
    gaol and there would be more breaches of the law. He was most anxious there should be no breaches of the law, but the right hon. Gentleman must arouse himself and do something, What was the good of their majority if they did not use it? They had not used it so far as the Highlands were concerned. He sincerely hoped that something substantial would be done, and that a migration scheme would be evolved without loss of time. For that the right hon. Gentleman required no legislation.
    MR. PIRIE,referring to an earlier ruling of the Chairman asked whether there had not frequently been on the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland discussions on all the subjects for which he was responsible; and, the Secretary for Scotland having declared that he was responsible for all these Boards, which were similar to those in Ireland, were they not entitled to discuss the action of the Scottish Boards? He trusted the Chairman would look into this question, because it was a great hardship on Members from Scotland that they should be deprived of the only opportunities they had for discussion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a speech.
    MR. PIRIE: I am asking a question.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Exactly the same rule applies to Ireland as to Scotland. When Members wish to discuss the Congested Districts Board in Ireland, that Vote is put down. When they wish to discuss the Department of Agriculture, that Vote is put down. Other things are discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. PIRIE: May I take it from you, Sir, that this matter will be looked into? It is a precedent which cannot be allowed to pass without very grave protest on the part of Scottish Members.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can raise his protest if he wishes. He can put down a Resolution to draw attention to my ruling. Undoubtedly the hon. Member has not studied the

    127
    question. What I have stated is undoubtedly the rule of the Committee. For my own part, I need not tell the Committee that I should be only too happy if there were no such rules. It is a great trouble to me to have to carry them out, but, being here, I must carry them out. There is no question about that.
    MR. YOUNGERsaid he did not question the ruling of the Chairman; as far as he was concerned he would be the very last to dispute it. He had hoped before the general discussion was closed to bring under the notice of the Committee a question which directly affected the administrative powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland, whose Department was very hard worked. Everyone on that side of the House, at all events, would be only too willing and glad to acknowledge the courtesy and kindness they invariably met with from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to matters on which they approached him. The question he desired to raise, if he was in order, was the very serious one which had arisen in Lewis in connection with what might be called the breakdown of local government there. The rates had risen in twenty years from 2s. or 3s. in the £ to l5s. or 16s. They were almost wholly paid by one individual, who unfortunately was in a position in which he found it impossible to raise the money with which to pay them, and the whole of the local government of the district was likely to break down. He wished to get from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that he would look into the matter, and deal with it. He asked whether he would be in order in raising that question.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not quite know what is actually the question which the hon. Gentleman desires to raise, whether it has reference to law and order. I presume the hon. Gentleman is not going to advocate something which would require legislation.
    MR. YOUNGER: No.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If it is a question of a local impasse which the Secretary
    128
    for Scotland could do something to meet, then it can be raised by the hon. Member; but if the hon. Gentleman desires to refer to a subject which relates purely to local government, then it would arise on the Vote for the Local Government Board.
    MR. YOUNGERsaid it was extremely difficult to explain precisely what he wanted, or what remedy to suggest. Some twelve years ago a similar difficulty arose, and the Secretary for Scotland at that time came forward with a grant out of some fund which he had at his disposal, and he kept the machine of local government going irrespective of legislation. He believed the right hon Gentleman knew of that case, and he did not know whether in the circumstances he would be in order in proceeding with the question.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Nothing can be done otherwise than through the agency of the Local Government Board Under these circumstances I would suggest that whatever question is desired to be raised on the point by hon. Gentlemen opposite is proper for discussion on the Vote for the Local Government Board.
    THE CHAIRMAN: In these circumstances it is clearly a question for the Local Government Board Vote.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he had put a Motion on the Paper to reduce the Vote by £900, but it would be for the convenience of the Committee if he were to move instead the reduction of the entire Vote by the sum of £1,000. Reference had been made to the present situation in the island of Lewis by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, but he ventured to say that the facts had become a little distorted in the stream of the hon. Gentleman's eloquence. He would like to say one or two words as to the actual facts. The remote island of Barra probably contained 18,000 acres. In 1878 the present proprietres; succeeded to the estate, and the estate was divided into 8,000 acres crofts, and 10,000 acres farms.

    129
    As time went on, the population of Barra increased at a continuous and steady rate, and a demand arose for more land for small holdings. In 1883 the proprietress gave about 4,500 acres of land to be divided into small holdings, and in 1901 a further demand arose, and the proprietor gave 3,000 acres. At the present moment the proprietress held practically no land in Barra which she had not cut up into small holdings. The adjacent island of Vatersay was smaller, and comprised 2,250 acres.
    AN HON. MEMBER: 3,350.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the hon. Member was including Sandray, which was a separate island. The land was sold to the Congested Districts Board, and in August, 1906, the rest of the land was relet upon a new lease to the tenant who had had possession of it for many years, at a rent of £400. The soil of Vatersay, he understood, was a thin soil, and while eminently suitable for grazing was not so suitable for purposes of agriculture. There was said to be considerable difficulty about the water supply, and he understood the tenant was allowed to go across to Barra to get water to water his stock. There was no school, of course, and no church, and the Congested Districts Board had not power to supply any money voted to them for the purpose of building a school, and therefore a school would fall to be built out of the rates. The parish rates in Vatersay were 17s. 4d. in the £ and the county rate 22s. 6d. in the £ and the building of a school would be a matter of somewhat serious consideration. He said this because some question had arisen as to the suitability of the island for making small holdings. It had always been the view of the proprietress that the land was not suited for the making of small holdings. It was scheduled as a suitable area by the Deer Forest Commission, but he was informed it was very doubtful whether the island was ever actually visited by any members of the Commission or their representatives. Experts had reported upon the soil of sixty acres of the land, but their reports were entirely contradictory. One said the soil was of very good quality, and the other said it was very poor;
    130
    therefore they were in some difficulty in judging of the precise nature of the facts. What surprised him was that when a practical test was suggested by the Secretary for Scotland, complaint being made of the soil of that portion of Vatersay at present in possession of the Congested Districts Board, the people appeared to have put objections in the way, and the test, he understood, had not been carried out. He did not know why objections were put in the way or why the test had not been carried out. So much as regarded the geographical part of the case. In 1906 one or two cattle were landed in Vatersay, and more were brought over, and eventually the Sheriff was sent by the Scottish Office. He reported that the proprietress ought to be asked not to take any action, because the people who brought the cattle over had promised to remove them. No action was taken, and the cattle were still there. In August, 1906, the new lease of which he had spoken was arranged, and in October, 1906, the first of the squatting began. These men had gone over there, had got timber and some kind of corrugated iron, and had erected a number of houses. He was told there was at present something like 150 people. The first time this extraordinary state of facts was brought to the notice of the House of Commons in debate was in 1907, when the Leader of the Opposition referred, on the Small Landholders Bill, to the state of affairs in Barra. The Lord Advocate, on being appealed to as to whether there was perfect peace in the crofting districts of Scotland generally, said that throughout the whole realm of his jurisdiction there was perfect peace except in one remote island, the island of Barra, where the proprietrix had been unfortunate in her relations with her tenantry. He said these poor tenants at Barra had gone over to the neighbouring island of Vatersay, interfering with no human soul, in order to plant a few potatoes, hoping they might come again in the spring and reap what they had sown, and when he had been asked to interfere and take steps to vindicate the law he had said this was not a proper case for interference, because it was a question of disputed civic possession. He would not comment on the agricultural miracle involved in the suggestion that these people were going to sail over in October

    131
    and return in the spring to reap the potatoes which, they had sown, but with regard to the rest of the statement it was inaccurate in almost every matter of fact contained in it. "The poor tenants of Barra"—the men were not tenants but cottars—"interfered with no human soul." The statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the present position of affairs would show sufficiently how things stood in that matter. "Question of disputed civic possession"—these men had never claimed in a Court of law any shadow of a title to the land. Everybody admitted that the land belonged to the proprietrix, and the only question was as to the reason for their being there. For a maximum of inaccuracy in a minimum of words that was pre-eminently conspicuous. What was to be done in regard to the present state of affairs? More land was wanted, and it was said that Lady Cathcart put difficulties in the way of the acquiring of that land. In a sense, he could understand hon. Members taking that view, because Lady Cathcart had always thought Vatersay was not a place fitted by nature for experiments in small holdings. If they went further, and said that having accepted its suitability she had then put difficulties in the way, no suggestion could possibly be more remote from the truth. Lady Cathcart had offered, not once, but repeatedly, to sell the land to the Congested Districts Board. Why had they not accepted that offer? There was no question of price, because it had never got the length of the price being mooted. Lady Cathcart said she was perfectly willing to accept a fair and reasonable price, and to submit the question to arbitration, and to take whatever price might be adjudicated as fair and reasonable. He had noticed in Questions and in other ways in the last few weeks a sort of suggestion that Lady Cathcart had in her dealings with a Government Department stuck out for an exorbitant price. If hon. Members would look at the statement which had been circulated, they would see on page 36 a statement of Lady Cathcart's transactions with the Government. There were only two transactions in Barra and Vatersay. One was a sale of sixty acres in Vatersay,
    132
    at a price which the Government's agent, who inspected the land, said was a fair price, and was practically the price which he had put upon the land himself. The other was a sale of land in Barra in regard to the price of part of which he understood no question was raised. The rest was sold for £5,500, and it was said that that was too much. It was said that the Crofters Commission proceeded, immediately the estates were acquired by the Government to reduce the rents. It was quite true., The price paid by the Government was £7,500 for the whole, and the rents were reduced to something like £5,500. The difference between the two represented, in the first place, compensation to the tenants who were forced to surrender their existing leases, and, in the second place, the value of the land for other than agricultural purposes. Lady Cathcart would have got the full price, and more than the full price, which she got from the Government, from the other competitor who was in the market at the same time. In the present case there was no question of price, but the right hon. Gentleman said it was out of harmony with the Government policy, and insisted on his own suggestion. The first thing that happened was that the Secretary for Scotland wrote a letter on 5th September, 1907, making proposals for the settlement of the island under the Congested Districts Board. Lady Cathcart thought that was not a wise proposal, but when pressed by the Government she reluctantly consented. The first thing was to make some arrangement in the existing situation. A new lease had come into operation, and had been arranged thirteen months before. Lady Cathcart was naturally anxious to see what was to be done for her tenants, because she had had previous experience of land taken by the Congested Districts Board, or rather land which had been scheduled by them. Lady Cathcart, in the case he alluded to, gave notice to her tenant, who quitted the land, and afterwards the Congested Districts Board were unable to carry out their scheme, and the land was thrown upon her hands, the result being that she had not been able to get a tenant for that land. It was almost incredible, but the Government had taken up the position that compensation

    133
    to be given to the tenant for surrendering his lease was not a matter for the Government but a question to be settled between the proprietor and the tenant. In this House and in Committee over and over again they were assured that in legislative proposals the Government had taken steps by Amendments to secure that loss on the letting value to the landlord and the tenant, arising from the acquisition of a farm for small holdings, should be compensated. In the case which he had laid before the Committee the Secretary for Scotland afterwards wrote informing Lady Cathcart that the whole of her form might not be required for new holdings. If there was in Barra this tremendous hunger for land, why not take those 2,000 acres? Probably he would be told they were not all suitable, but in that case what the Government really proposed was to pick out the heart of the form for small holdings. In 'the present trouble with the squatters Lady Cathcart had been told that she had a civil remedy. He had heard her ladyship blamed because some hon. Members held the idea that she had hastened into Court in order to get these men put into prison, but nothing could be further from the truth. Lord Tweedmouth in the House of Lords said that the action of the Vatersay men could not be stigmatised too strongly, because it was monstrous and intolerable. His Lordship further stated that Lady Cathcart had been badly served by her agents, and if an interdict had been taken out and enforced the trespassers would have been driven off her land. Here was a case where a Member of the Liberal Government was not blaming the proprietrix for resorting to the law, but blaming the agents for delay in taking legal proceedings. He was aware that proceedings by civil process were cumbrous and expensive, but there was another process ready to the hand of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers which they declined to use, but their reasons for declining appeared to him very insufficient. The process he alluded to was under the Trespass Acts of 1865. They had no law of trespass in Scotland, generally speaking, but squatting without the consent of the owner was an offence
    134
    under the Act of 1865, which provided that—
    "Every person who lodges in any premises or occupies or encamps on any land being private property without the consent and permission of the owner or legal occupier commits an offence and may be prosecuted and punished."
    That was the law in Scotland, and why was it not applied by the right hon. Gentleman? The first answer given was that the Act was inapplicable in this case because it was intended to refer only to single instances, and this was a case of continuous possession of land. A more extraordinary statement was never made on behalf of a Minister of the Crown. In order to escape the penalties of the law it appeared that all a man needed to do in future would be to persist in his wrong-doing. It was wrong to do this for one day, but if they went on occupying the land for a long time it could not be objected to. At any rate, that was the sum and substance of the position taken up by the Secretary for Scotland. The Lord Advocate, however, took a different view, and he said there was no precedent for interference in this case, and that it would be an act of great impropriety to apply any such legislation to the present state of affairs. In the year 1891, in the island of Orinsay, that Act was applied and no question was raised in the Court at the time as to its competency and though no law agent was present, there was a very clever agent representing the Land League present who was afterwards complimented by the Judge upon the ability with which he had stated his case. Fortunately occurrences of this character were very rare and this was the only precedent in regard to an affair of this magnitude. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Law Officers of the Crown that this very Act was being invoked in the case of a much humbler class of offender. When a tinker was imprisoned for sleeping out the conviction took place under the Trespass Act of 1865. If humble offenders of that kind were brought up under that Act, why had it not been applied in this case? A man could be brought up and punished under the Act for sleeping out and yet they refused to apply the Act in the case of men who had taken

    135
    forcible possession of land which did not belong to them. He called that robbery and there was no other name for it. He knew that in the House and out of it there was a great amount of sympathy with the case of these men, but he could not say how far that sympathy was founded upon a real knowledge of the facts. Those men undoubtedly had I a very hard life and lived in poor houses, and experienced the greatest difficulty in making both ends meet. They had a hard life and were the victims of circumstances and of a system which the Government wanted to extend, to the whole of Scotland. The houses were poor because they had divorced the landlords from interest in the upkeep of them. The holdings did not pay because they were uneconomic. He wished to call attention to the fact that the statement in the note at the bottom of page 4 of the Correspondence was most misleading. The document referred to was never pretended to be a judicial statement of the situation as it existed. The sheriff had written a letter, which was in posession of the Scottish Office, stating that the document was an ex-parte statement of the case, and that he did not make an inquiry which in any sense of the term was judicial. He simply went down to the place, took the men's statements, and reported them. The note might lead one naturally to a different conclusion. There were one or two statements in regard to matters of fact to which it might be worth while to call attention, because they were absolutely denied by Lady Cathcart and her agents. It was stated in the report, for instance, that no house sites were available at Castlebay. He was informed that house sites were available, and that a number of fishermen were paying a moderate feu duty. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many?"] He could not say, but he was told the number was considerable. Did the hon. Gentleman deny it? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] He could only give the information which was given to him. It was a question of fact, and the hon. Member might have different information from his own. There was a reference to a letter which had been written forbidding a man to build a house. That must have struck hon. Members as being a very serious matter and a singularly hard case. On looking into the matter
    136
    he found that the place where that man was forbidden to build a house was a common grazing, which in 1883 was subdivided between thirty or forty tenants, and there was a written agreement that for the common interest none of the tenants should put up houses upon it. The case of the man to whom the Sheriff specially referred seemed hard, but when looked into what were the facts? In 1891 that man entered into a lease of a grazing, and, after he had been there ten years, ho left, and was then nine and a half years in arrear with his rent. It was a judicial rent which had been fixed by the Crofters Commission. The last suggestion in the report was that Lady Cathcart had not appreciated her duty as landlady. Nothing could be further from the fact. He had told the Committee what was done. He had heard it suggested that Lady Cathcart had made a profit out of all she had done. If that were true, was it to be a crime for a landlady to make a profit out of what she did for the benefit of the community? Was it the Liberal idea that they were always to benefit the community at the expense of the landowner. So far from benefiting by what she had done, in regard to land Lady Cathcart had been at considerable pecuniary loss. There was one case which was so striking that ho would state it to the Committee. It was the case of a common grazing which was let as a club farm in thirty-five shares. The rent to each member was £3 16s., giving a total of about £130. That was the amount Lady Cathcart was offered for the farm by a man of ample means and capital. The Crofters Commission in 1891 reduced the rents and cancelled the bulk of the arrears. The rents then due were £904 8s. and the arrears were £772 1s. At the present moment the rents were still in arrear by many hundreds of pounds. If Lady Cathcart had not subdivided that holding she would have got a rent of something like £130. As a matter of fact, she had only received rents amounting to £15 11s. He said that in answer to the suggestion that Lady Cathcart in subdividing the land in Barra had been solely consulting her own interest and disregarding the interest of those residing on the island. Much had been made of the sheriffs description of the squatters as fair and reasonable men; but the words which followed were not quoted—"except in

    137
    their desire to get land, and take it if need be." The Government sent the sheriff to the islands to try to induce these men to desist from their course of action. The sheriff said to them, "Please go away, you are breaking the law." They said, "No." Then the Government turned to Lady Cathcart and said, "You must arrange for these men to stay, and you must do it at your own expense." He blamed the Government for not having adopted the advice of the sheriff to buy the land, which could be had from Lady Cathcart at a reasonable price. He blamed them for refusing compensation to the tenant. He blamed them also for not having maintained law and order, and for having tried to evade responsibility for the consequences. There were only two solutions of the difficulty. One was a scheme of emigration beyond the seas. Lady Cathcart sent some emigrants from South Uist and Benbecula to Canada some years ago. The latest account of thorn was that they were comfortable and independent on farms of the average extent of one hundred and fifty acres, and that they retained the most grateful memories of Lady Cathcart. The only other possible solution was the establishment of some more complete system of industries in the islands. That was the remedy suggested by the Congested Districts Board in this year's Report. But the Government shut their eyes to both of these solutions. They supposed that peace and happiness were to be secured by the extension of the system of dividing and sub-dividing the land among the crofters, which had produced so far but indigence and unquiet. He blamed the Government for the course they had elected to take. He blamed them far more for pursuing that course with a lack of consistency and courage, as well as with a total disregard of every principle of justice. He begged to move.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,600, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
    MR. A. DEWARhoped he might congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Lanark on having dealt with what was necessarily a very
    138
    difficult case with considerable ability and much moderation, and—if he might say so—his speech was able because it was moderate to a very large extent. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman felt very keenly on this case—as he did from the other side, and as many hon. Members beside him felt. He hoped he might be able to emulate the hon. Gentleman's moderation in anything he had to say. There were really two questions involved. There was, first of all, the dispute between Lady Gordon Cathcart and the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. The hon. Gentleman opposite had dealt with that at considerable length, and he thought he had better leave these right hon. Gentlemen to defend themselves. But there was another question which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman. That was the very long and very distressing dispute between Lady Gordon Cathcart and her tenants. Hon. Members could not understand the dispute with the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate without first of all mastering the other dispute and the full facts in connection with it. He had taken some trouble to acquaint himself with the facts, and if the House would be good enough to bear with him he would try to explain them. He once held a view not unlike that of the hon. Gentleman and of others whom he had heard speak or whose words he had read—that Lady Gordon Cathcart was a much ill-used lady. He thought the Leader of the Opposition in Glasgow put the case this way. Here were a lot of unprincipled men deliberately seizing the property, without any legal right or moral justification, of a singularly benevolent lady who all her days had been helping them. The right hon. Gentleman said that on 17th January last in Glasgow. What he regretted was that the right hon. Gentleman should have chosen that particular time for making that statement. At that time these ten men were not in prison. Their case was sub judice, they were under the order of the Court to appear before the Court; and he regretted to say that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in Scotland was very serious for these men. The public at once took the view

    139
    of the right hon. Gentleman, and the newspapers wrote—he must say with unwonted freedom—about these poor men, who could not afford to bring either the newspapers or the right hon. Gentleman into Court, while they were themselves imprisoned for contempt of Court. The Scotsman, writing on 29th January, on the case as presented by the right hon. Gentleman, said—
    "Her [Lady Gordon Cathcart's] fault has been habitual and perhaps unwise indulgence of the cottars, who are now repaying her generous and too considerate policy by forcible seizure and wanton injury."
    That was to prejudge the case. Was it wanton injury without any moral justification? Had she all those years been too indulgent to those ten men and their fellows? He had examined the case very carefully and had reached the conclusion that that was not a true representation of the case. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman, except in so far as he had been supplied with and circulated the wrong facts. What was the character of these men? Were they likely to be guilty of a wanton act of spoliation? They were of the West Highland fisher class. He did not put his case too highly, as was well known to Scotsmen in the House and to those who had visited the Hebrides, when he said that there was not a more law-abiding, peaceable, and loyal class in the King's dominions or anywhere else. Crime in the ordinary sense was entirely unknown among them. Any trouble that they had had was trouble arising from the land. That was the general character of the class, and the character of these particular ten men to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred was given by the sheriff of the county in his report to the Secretary for Scotland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What are the exact words?
    MR. A. DEWARsaid he had not the exact words of the report with him, but the right hon. Gentleman attacked the men as having made forcible seizure of property and as being guilty of wanton injury. The Scotsman interpreted that as the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. The sheriff of the county was not in the least a land agitator. He was a strong Conservative, a most eminent
    140
    lawyer, and one of the fairest-minded and most highly-respected men in Scotland. That gentleman went down and inquired on the spot. It was not a judicial inquiry. He went on the invitation of the Secretary for Scotland to see if he could clear up the situation. He tried to get at the facts and to discover where the real trouble lay and who was to blame. The sheriff's report was that the men were respectable, reasonable, intelligent, courteous, kindly, and thrifty. That was the class of persons against whom the case was that they had deliberately seized and wantonly injured property without any moral justification. He found corroboration of that report in the fact that every public man and every public body who had ever gone there took precisely, the same view. And yet these decent, respectable, law-abiding men had broken the law. Why? If they had done wanton injury it must have been under very strong pressure. Was there a burden they had had to bear all this time in silence and alone? The Committee had not heard of that. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark had said that this was an extremely difficult case. He did not want to attack this lady, and would not do so. She was the owner of this property at Vatersay. He had not the least doubt of her kindness. But she lived far away from the islands she owned. She had not shown her face there for thirty years. These simple-minded people thought that if they only could see this lady their troubles would speedily end, and he agreed with them. But this lady had delegated the management of her estate to others—to a firm of solicitors. He did not approve of the management of estates by solicitors. Experience showed that absentee landlordism generally brought trouble. He had not the slightest doubt that these particular solicitors were quite a respectable firm; but he contended that the manner in which this estate had been managed during the past, thirty years was such that, if his information was correct, it would throw a very different light on the action for these men than had been afforded by the speech of the hon. Member for North-west Lanark. Mr. Wilson, the sheriff, further said that there was great public sympathy

    141
    in the islands with these people, because of the fact that Lady Gordon Cathcart had neglected her duty as a landowner, and long indifference to their necessities had gone far to drive them to exasperation. The sheriff did not use language of that kind or put it into the mouth of public opinion without anxious consideration. That language was significant it was a hint to hon. Members to be just. He found that in the year 1901, when the present Secretary for Scotland was not responsible, the Congested Districts Board Inspector, in his Report, said—
    "I found the people very reasonable and moderate in their talk and their demands."
    What had produced the change? Barra was fifty miles and more away from the mainland. It was isolated from markets. When one went there the first thing that struck him was the houses like large beehives, mere temporary erections studded anywhere. Some of the townships, closely packed, were situated on a bog often knee-deep in water. Some were down by the sea-shore below high-water mark. If one inquired why these people built on bogs when there were thousands of acres firm enough, the answer was that they could not get any other land—not a foot of it. The hon. Member for North-west Lanark said that there were sites to be had at Castlebay. The hon. Gentleman would not say that unless he were instructed and believed it to be true. But his information was to the contrary; that it was impossible to find a site at Castlebay. These men were not of the crofter class, but cottars; cottars were landless men; and that was the root of the agitation. He agreed that they had no legal right to be there. They were there on sufferance. They had built their huts on sufferance, and the ground officers could come and say: "Pull down that house," as they had often done. The cottars desired land; they prayed for land, not to steal it, but to buy it pay rent for it, but could not get it; and so they built on bogs, or on the shore below high-water mark. The result was that the houses were grossly unhealthy. Disease swept through them from time to time—typhoid, scarlet fever, and diphtheria. He had gone through the Reports of the sanitary inspectors and
    142
    they said that "the houses were unhealthy, the ground air was moist and impure, and gave rise to disease." Could anyone wonder that when these epidemics broke out it was a very serious matter to these primitive people, who were far from doctors. Everyone of the ten men now in prison had had fever in his house. Seven of them had lost relatives by fever. They earnestly desired to escape, and to pay for their escape. Time after time for twenty-five years they had petitioned Lady Gordon Cathcart, and had received no reply to their petitions. They had parish councils created, and they had some powers to create small holdings. The parish councils petitioned Lady Gordon Cathcart, and received no reply. The county council of Invernesshire sent down a deputation to Vatersay and to Barra, and held an inquiry lasting over nine days, and they reported that land was available; that land was urgently required; that land would be highly beneficial; but the land was not to be obtained on reasonable terms. What were the terms demanded for what, after all, was the health and life of the people? Why was it that a parish council could not get land on reasonable terms? What objection was there to keeping these people, who were supported by the public bodies, on the land. If these men who had reported on the matter were right then the estates management were wrong. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, on 17th January, know the conditions under which these people were living owing to the want of land? Did he know the efforts they had made for twenty-five years to get land by peaceable and legitimate agitation? Did he know that the public authorities had demanded land on their behalf? If he knew all this, as he knew it now, did he still think there was nothing in the way of moral justification for their refusing any longer to live in their unhealthy environment? Was there not a point beyond human endurance, and had not that point been reached? He admitted that the law should be obeyed, and must be obeyed, but did not something also depend on the quality of the law? Were there not some laws that every good citizen disregarded without any loss of self-respect? There was the case of

    143
    passive resistance. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite did not approve of passive resistance there was the illustration of the speed-limit for motor cars. Would any hon. Gentleman opposite who owned a motor car, or who rode in one, get up and say he did not disregard that law every day?
    AN HON. MEMBER: I do not.
    MR. A. DEWARsaid he was very glad to see that some hon. Gentlemen on the back benches obeyed the law. He knew the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition could not say so, because it was common knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman had twice got into trouble for not observing the speed-limit. Therefore, if the law appeared to the people to be unreasonable they would never be got to obey it. Of that the speed-limit for motorcars was really an illustration. If a law which interfered with pleasure could be disregarded without loss of character or self-respect were those who disregarded it to condemn other's who disregarded a law which inflicted untold miseries and privations on them? Were they, in the language of the Leader of the Opposition, utterly "without moral justification?" They had obeyed this law all their lives. They tried to alter it by every constitutional means for twenty-five years. They were in the last extremity. The Small Landholders Bill brought relief in sight. They were full of hope as it passed through that House, but when it became apparent that it could not become an Act and alter the law they were in despair. They took the law into their own hands. They went to Vatersay. Vatersay was but a mile from this unhealthy bog. Some of these men were in prison now, and yet their fathers lived on crofts in Vatersay. In 1857 they were evicted and sent over to Barra. These men still considered they were morally entitled to go back to what they thought was their home. Hon. Members opposite would admit that there was the law of dual ownership in these parts, yet they were attacking the Lord-Advocate because he would not make these men criminals. Hon. Members had said the estate managers had been generous and considerate.
    144
    In 1883 some land was divided up into crofts, but, after all, every landlord had some responsibility as well as privileges, and surely one of the responsibilities were to see to it that every man on the estate had a chance of living a healthy life. Land was divided up in 1883 and crofters put upon the estate. When the Crofters Commission came to the estate five years after they reduced the rents 35 per cent. It was not generous, after all, because the rent was too high. It might be good business, but it was not generosity. The land was sold to the Congested Districts Board for thirty-eight and a half years purchase. Twenty-five years purchase was the usual price. Again he said that might be good business, but it was not generosity. Six hundred acres at Vatersay let at 2s. an acre was sold for £600 which came to over 100 years purchase. Again good business, but not generosity. It was said that harbours had been erected, water had been brought, and hotels built—that was quite true, but his information was that all that had been done on sound business principles. [Cries of "Why not?"] There was no reason at all why not, except that hon. Members must not now plead generosity. The right hon. Gentleman referred to generous and considerate actions, but Lady Gordon Cathcart made 12½ per cent. by it. Water was brought three-quarters of a mile by gravitation from this lady's own lake. For that water, the fishermen were charged 10s. a season, and the lighters 15s., amounting to a revenue of over £200 a year. This was perhaps good estate management, but the right hon. Gentleman must not call it generosity. The case against the Lord Advocate was that he did not put the Act of 1865 into operation. That Act was known in Scotland as the "Tinkers" Act, and was to prevent loafers, tinkers and tramps from sleeping and smoking in out-houses and in haystacks. It had always been used for that purpose except once, when it was sanctioned for this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman was once Secretary for Scotland; had he not frequently known squatting in various parts of the islands, but he had never once suggested this Act being put into operation. In fact,

    145
    on one occasion the right hon. Gentleman stated that this Act would not apply at all. A conservative Lord Advocate, McDonald, said—
    "If a man trespasses on the property of another he can only be turned out on the operation of a civil Court, and the owner of the property has to suffer any damage done that may occur during the time necessary for that operation, because we believe that this is a free country, and because we believe that everybody will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. Without that we should have no basis for our liberty at all."
    That was said by the Conservative Lord-Advocate of the day, who was now at the head of the criminal jurisprudence of Scotland. And not only that, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition agreed with him. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I confess I thought that the able and conclusive reply of the Lord-Advocate would have sufficed the House as our contribution to this somewhat too prolonged debate."
    The right hon. Gentleman agreed that the basis of our liberty depended on each man turning trespassers off his own land, and that law was well settled in Scotland. This was a case where the mismanagement of an estate had brought serious trouble with the tenants. Was it to be said that the Secretary for Scotland should step in whenever that happened and pay any price demanded? Would the House believe that in the middle of the negotiations in this instance a new lease was entered into for nineteen years? ["No."] Yes; after these people had gone there, and all this trouble had begun, the lease was deliberately renewed for nineteen years, and it was demanded that the Secretary for Scotland should pay this man his price. But he congratulated the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord-Advocate, who had gone a long way, on their courage in having refused to be browbeaten, and in having refused to be dictated to by all the journals in Scotland in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had safeguarded the public funds and had withstood the tempest, and so had the Lord-Advocate, and they ought to tell them that they were proud of them to-day. The real question here was, he feared, far bigger than he would be permitted to deal with in this debate, and as had been
    146
    said the real blame rested with the land laws, which in the fulness of time would have to be altered. These people believed that they had the right to cultivate a few acres of their own native land, if they were able and willing, and prepared to pay a fair price. Hon. Gentlemen opposite even had admitted that principle, yet they had ten respectable men in Scotland sent to prison because they desired to get back to the land—the policy which for years in that House they had been advocating. He had seen these men in prison and talked with them. The House would perhaps permit him to say that he had never seen a better type of men in his life. They were quiet, respectable and reasonable. They had a passionate love for their native land, and desired above all else to be allowed to cultivate a few acres of it. The land was available, urgently required, and would be highly beneficial, they were told by public authorities. Why should they not have it? Why send them to the slums? The Royal Naval Reserve was recruited from these parts. These men are able and willing to serve their country if they had a chance. The hon. Member had read passages from a pamphlet which endeavoured to blacken the character of these men. He saw that, on page 11, it said that one man had a croft for ten years. He asked the hon. Member how the writer knew that the man had a croft. The man to whom the reference was made—his name was Campbell—had not a croft. He would like to know why on one page of this book it should be said that this man had a croft, and then on the last page, page 20, it should be stated that he had share of a grazing. They were two very different things.
    MR. YOUNGER: It may be a mistake.
    MR. A. DEWARsaid it was not a mistake. The point was that he had heard the whole story, for he had seen the man in the presence of his fellows. He asked him what was the real explanation of his story. He said: "The factor offered me a share of grazing." "I went there, and there were seventeen other men with shares of the grazing. When I

    147
    went there I was the eighteenth. The seventeen men said: 'What right have Volt to a share of the grazing?' I said that the factor had sent me, and that he had made me deposit a pound before he would accept me. They would not allow me to share. I went back to the factor and told him. The factor said nothing. He never gave me my grazing, and he has never returned me my pound." That was no doubt an ex parte statement, and he thought it right to tell the House frankly the source of his information in order that they might test it. But he would be very sorry to stand there and give information which he did not know to be accurate. He believed it to be accurate; it was given to him in the presence of the other men, and they agreed with it. This pamphlet was admittedly inaccurate, because it called this man a crofter in one place, and then in another it said that he had a share of grazing. He certainly never had a croft, and he believed that he never had a grazing. He paid £1 deposit for one, but never got in. He had now finished, and he left the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland to defend themselves. He had not touched upon the case at all. He had endeavoured to tell the House, so far as he knew them, the true facts of the case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had occupied some part of his speech with an attack on the merits of the management of Lady Gordon Cathcart's estate, and he had endeavoured to prove that the cottars and crofters who were breaking the law at that moment in Vatersay were substantially and in reality only exercising those primal rights of which no law had a right to deprive anybody. That was his contention he understood. In order to make out that contention the hon. and learned Gentleman had traversed a wide field. He had accused him of making a speech about a case which was sub judice, and accused Lady Gordon Cathcart's agent, in a pamphlet circulated that morning, of misleading and inaccurate observations, and he had given a good many trimmings and adornments to the general basis of his argument on
    148
    which he proposed to say one word before coming to the crucial and central point of the hon. and learned Member's observations. His last point was that the pamphlet was extremely inaccurate, because it called a man a crofter who had only a share in a grazing farm. Did this man sleep out of doors?
    MR. A. DEWAR: There is no house on a joint grazing at all. A cottar has only a right to put his cattle on a certain spot along with seventeen other men who share the grazing. A croft is a very different thing, and that is why I say the statement in the pamphlet is inaccurate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURbegged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. This man had, of course, a residence on the island, and had a share of the common grazing. They might, if they liked, draw a distinction between that and. other forms of crofter holdings and other farms, to be more accurate; but to say that there was any misleading statement, or that the ordinary usages of language were violated by saying that this man, who resided in an inland parish with a share of a common grazing, was a cottar, or that such a statement was almost criminally and falsely inaccurate, was pressing a very narrow point much too far.
    MR. A. DEWAR: He did not get the grazing.
    AN HON. MEMBER: He did.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would deal equally briefly with the hon. and learned Gentleman's attack on himself—an attack most courteously delivered, but he thought most unfounded. He had made a speech in January in Glasgow, in which he dealt with the case of Lady Gordon Cathcart. He had forgotten the precise language he used on that occasion. Like many other persons who had a great many speeches to make, nature had kindly provided him with a memory which enabled him to dismiss them. By the courtesy of the Secretary for Scotland he had been provided with a copy of the speech. He thought that,

    149
    so far as it dealt with this question, it was an extremely good one. He had forgotten how good it was. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in that speech he had made an attack on the character of these men who were forcibly occupying somebody else's land. He had said no more about these men than the hon. and learned Gentleman had said himself. He said that they had broken the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they had broken the law. He had made no vituperative attack upon them. Perhaps he did not know the Western Highlands so well as the rest of the Highlands, but he could entirely endorse what he took to be the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that these people were very law-abiding, and in a general way sober and agreeable persons to deal with. He did not say a word against them otherwise than that they had broken the law. If he was asked whom he blamed for breaking the law, he would not put the chief onus on them, but on their advisers. He would have said they were misled by agitators, and that learned Gentlemen, like the hon. and learned Gentlemen himself, had gone down and told them that that was breaking the law, but it was a perfectly innocent and moral way of breaking the law, and he would have said that such advice given to people like that was sure to be followed, and that the blame did not attach so much to the unhappy dupes as to—he did not like to say reckless agitators or unscrupulous advisers, but he most distinctly said that the theories which the hon. and learned Gentleman had advanced were absolutely inconsistent both with any administration of the law and with the prosperity and welfare of those for whom the law existed, not the rich, but the poor. The hon. Gentleman had proceeded to make what was more serious than any personal criticism of himself. He had made some comment on the whole management of the Gordon Cathcart estate, which seemed to him to be quite unfounded. He had said that the county council stated in 1897 that the land could and ought to be obtained. But since then the whole of the land on Barra that belonged to Lady Gordon Cathcart had been subdivided. There was not a single acre which had not been given,
    150
    for good or for evil—and it Was a Very doubtful question which—into the hands of small tenants. The hon. Gentleman had said that Lady Gordon Cathcart must not claim generosity for that. He did not know that Lady Gordon Cathcart did claim generosity. She had lost money by it. She might have let the land to somebody who would have paid rent, but she had let it to small tenants who had not paid the rent, and if it was worth while to deal with the I question of her gains or losses that was a subject which the House ought not to forget. Then the hon. Gentleman had said: "You talk of the excellent management of Lady Cathcart's estate. Go to Barra. Look at the houses which are built there." But those were largely the houses, not of the tenants, but of the squatters who ought not to be there under the law passed by the hon. Gentleman's friends—the Crofters Act—the setters whom the Crofters Act forbade to be there for obvious reasons connected with the economic prosperity of the land. But they were there. Against the law they had built these wretched hovels. Against their own interests they were still squatting upon holdings no more than adequate, which their fathers were cultivating, and the landlord was powerless to resist this illegal action of the children of her tenants. Was she to be blamed because houses which she did not want to be built were put upon her land by persons forbidden to be there, not by a small technical Act passed in the interest of the owners of the soil, but by an Act which was always represented as a great social reform, passed deliberately in the interests of the crofters themselves, by the Party to which the hon. Gentleman belonged? Were they to understand that among the many functions which were to be thrust upon the landlords was that of building houses with proper drainage, water supply and accommodation for all the persons who ought not to be on their land, but who remained to the detriment, destruction, and bankruptcy of the whole community to which they belonged? The hon. Gentleman had said that she sold the land for thirty-five years purchase. But the number of years' purchase for which it was generous to sell land depended on how high the land was

    151
    rented, and it appeared that one of the competitors for the land at thirty-five years purchase was the very tenant who had been occupying it. If anybody knew the value of the land which he wished to buy, it was the tenant who had been occupying it, and it was perfectly absurd to say there was anything excessive or exorbitant in the price which she obtained for the land. But that was not all. It appeared that the persons to whom she sold it, the Congested Districts Board, sent their independent valuer, and they wrote afterwards to her and said the price which she had put upon the land was not in excess of the price their valuer had put on it. Was it fair of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had the unusual advantage of being the counsel for these unfortunate and misguided men, to raise a cheap and easy cheer against a landlord who could not be there to defend herself, and who belonged to a class which it was very easy to attack and of which the defence was not always a very popular undertaking?
    MR. A. DEWARsaid he did not think on reflection the right hon. Gentleman would accuse him of having come down to raise a cheap cheer. The right hon. Gentleman and his followers had repeated the statement that this was a singularly generous lady, and that she had shown her generosity in this matter. He replied to that by saying she got a very good price.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not accept the explanation of the hon. Member. Lady Gordon Cathcart's position, as he understood it, and he believed this was uncontradicted and uncontradictable, was that through all this she had used her property, not in the way which she thought most advisable for her own interest or for the interest of her tenants, but in accordance with the advice of the Congested Districts Board. She did not believe anything would be gained by dividing up the land; and she was right, as he thought. She did not believe the course pressed upon her by the Government was right, but she adopted it, and if they were going to discuss her money generosity, he would like very much to ask whether Lady Gordon Cathcart had or had not
    152
    pecuniarily gained from this part of her property. Lady Cathcart would have been ruined had she depended upon what she got for her property in Barra, as an unfortunate landlord of Lewis had been unable to meet his financial position for precisely similar reasons. The last point of the hon. Gentleman was that all this trouble would have been saved if the Land Bill of the Government relating to Scotland had been passed into law. The Land Bill suggested by the Government, as they told them over and over again, was an extension of the Crofters Act from the Highlands to the Lowlands of Scotland. That was the blessing they were going to give to the Lowlands of Scotland. But the Act was in force in the Highlands. This very part of the Highlands was under the Act.
    SIR J. DEWAR: There is no power to give new holdings under the Crofters Act.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. They have been given under this very Act on this very estate.
    SIR J. DEWAR: By agreement only.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that was the hon. Gentleman's point. His idea, therefore, was that all this trouble had arisen because the Government had not compulsory powers to take the small island of Vatersay and divide it up. What were the facts about the small island of Vatersay? The facts were, in the first place, that, in the opinion at least of the owner of the island, it was not fit for crofting. In the second place she said: "Well, if you dissent from that, I will sell you the land." In the third place she said: "If that does not satisfy you, I will go against my judgment and allow it to be divided up among the crofters; only you must Compensate the tenant." Did the hon. Gentleman say that under the Government Scottish Land Bill of last year the tenant would not have been compensated? He was very ready to interrupt a moment ago. He did not interrupt me now.
    SIR J. DEWAR: I quite agree with him in this case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid in that case the whole case broke down. The landlord was prepared to do precisely that which would have been done by compulsion under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman had it been passed into law. And the man who stood in the way of that Bill being carried out, the man who prevented the island being subdivided, the man who prevented the compensation being given to the tenant, was the Secretary for Scotland. He thought he had dealt with all the more important aspects of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but, in his opinion, that speech did not touch the really important aspect of the question, and it was to that that he would most earnestly and respectfully ask the attention of the House. He was not going to enter into the controversy as to the particular action of the Government or the Lord Advocate—whether they ought to have intervened earlier or under a different law. He personally thought they had been much to blame for the course they had pursued, but he had really nothing to add to the really admirable presentation of the case by his hon. friend behind him. There was a deeper and, as he thought, an uncontroversial aspect of the question which he would most anxiously press upon all who were interested either in the land question generally or more particularly in the land question as it affected the Western Islands of Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to hold that what was wanted in that part of the world was the perpetual division and sub-division of these wretched holdings into fragments more and more uneconomic, or perhaps he had better say less and less economic. This was not a question of dividing into better farms and into a more desirable system rich land on which men could live and thrive and pay their rates and rent, and bring up their families. Those holdings started by being like the very worst holdings in the West of Ireland, and the terrific and appalling lesson of the Irish famine had not penetrated there. It had produced in Ireland, he believed, wonderful effects. He did not believe that the danger of sub-division in
    154
    Ireland was now anything like what it was when he came into the House thirty years ago, still less what it was before the great Irish famine. The danger of subdivision was as great in the Western Islands as it ever was in the worst period of Irish history, and the results were more disastrous. It was only because the relatively small population concerned prevented our taking account of what was going on there that the full gravity of the situation was hid. Let them take the very island they were discussing. Let it be remembered that that island was not a rich grazing island; it was one of the far outworks of Scotland towards the Atlantic—a wet and misty, sunless clime, a poverty-stricken soil. This island, of the natural and inevitable barrenness of which only those who had visited these islands could form a conception, had the following history as regards population. In 1861 the population was 1,853; in 1871, 1,990; in 1881, 2,100; in 1891, 2,300; and in 1901, 2,500. In the forty years from 1861 to 1901 the population has increased by 37 per cent—and this upon land where the holdings were as small as they ought to be, and where the increase of population was an increase, not of small holders who ought to be there, but of cottars who ought not to be there in their own interests and in the interests of society. The rates of this wretched parish were 22s. in the £ He believed the Government had had to take over the administration of the Poor Law, which meant paying part of the rates themselves. They had had to take over education, which meant paying for education themselves. This parish, living in the poverty which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think justified the action the people had taken, was so poor that practically it was living upon the general charity of the community, and living miserably. Lady Cathcart told them that this small island which had been invaded was unfit for crofters, that in dry seasons the water was inadequate—that was disputed, but it certainly had no schools. There was nothing which constituted a civilised community; all that would have to be built. Out of whose funds? Out of the funds of the clients of the hon. Gentleman opposite, or out of the funds of the general taxpayer? But Barra and the

    155
    neighbouring island did not stand alone. Let them take the case of the Lewis. The Lewis were much larger islands. In the Lewis there were at this moment 3,000 crofters—that was to say, 3,000 legitimate tenants. And what was their average rent? Their average rent was £1 18s. 6d. In addition to the 3,000 crofters, and on the land of the 3,000 crofters, they had no less than 1,500 cottars, who lived in miserable houses run up by themselves. They only lived there against the laws. They lived there without paying rates, without paying rents—parasites on the community themselves, bringing forth families, which, he supposed, were again to subdivide still more this miserable district. The rates in Scotland were divided, as all Scotsmen knew, between landlord and tenant. The landlord was owed £20,000 arrears of rent. On these £20,000 arrears of rent he had had to pay rates; he had had to pay the other half of the rates. He felt himself unable to meet the financial situation. The whole life of the community had been brought to an end of its own resources, and Lewis, like Barra, was thrown upon charity, was unable to carry on the duties which were thrown upon every community in the country. It could neither educate itself nor look after its own sanitation, nor carry out any of the functions which they entrusted to local authorities. Was there the smallest sign that this tragic process was being brought to an end? It was the business of the Government, of course, to see that the law was fulfilled; it was the business of the Government to see that no subdivision took place. He did not wish to be severe upon them for not carrying out that function, because he imagined it to be a very difficult one. He really did not wish to judge them too harshly; but this was a plain duty, and it was a duty which they did not fulfil. Let him tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the idea that they could make up for this growth of cottar population on the islands which were inhabited by such small illegal outlets as were produced by the raid, the moral defence of which he had so rashly undertaken, was surely profoundly mistaken. Let them grant that Lady Cathcart was wrong about the water supply of Vatersay. Let them imagine that the
    156
    Government at last saw that if they believed in this system of small holdings they ought either to buy the land as they could under the Congested Districts Act, or take it and compensate the tenant, as they would if their own Bill had become law—granted. Let them suppose that those clients of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite got their holdings. Vatersay was going to be immediately a worse Barra, as Barra was a worse Lewis. The hon. Member did not even suggest how the school was to be built. He did not even suggest how the water supply was to be carried out. Those people could not do it; the landlord could not do it; was the Government going to do it? The hon. Gentleman, if he had persuaded any Member of the House that the evils of the Western Islands of Scotland were going to be dealt with, or even palliated and alleviated, by such transactions as had recently taken place—even if they were legal, even if though illegal they were moral—if he had done that he had done a great wrong to the social welfare of that part of the Highlands. He had too much regard and affection for the population of the Highlands—[" Oh, oh," and a LABOUR MEMBER: Parasites.] There were persons in this House who thought that affection was never shown except by suggesting illegality. He took a different view, and he repeated and everybody who knew him knew that he spoke the truth—that he had the greatest affection and regard for this Highland population. There was no population in the world who so rapidly entwined themselves into one's affections as the inhabitants of those bleak and desolate districts. But it was really madness to suggest that their lot was to be improved by telling them that they were doing right when, in fact, they were doing wrong; and even less was their lot to be improved by not throwing the whole of their weight into stopping this hopeless subdivision of land—this accumulation of uneconomic holdings, this addition of cottar to crofter until universal bankruptcy spread over the land—that was the worst of all. He did not wish to attack hon. and right hon. Members. Personally, he thought they had grossly mismanaged the whole

    157
    of this affair, and that they had behaved most cruelly to Lady Gordon Cathcart. But that was a small matter. They might be angels of light; Lady Gordon Cathcart might not deserve—though as far as he knew she thoroughly did deserve—the name of an enlightened landlord. Let them remember that this debate on the state of Barra did not touch merely the action of the Lord-Advocate or of a particular landlord; it touched the whole social condition of a particular portion of these islands, and he submitted that the doctrine preached from those benches, and the practice of this Government led, and could only lead, to the further difficulty, degradation, poverty, and bankruptcy of a population which, for its moral as well as for its intellectual character, assuredly deserved well of the House and of the country.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid nobody could say that the discussion of the Scottish questions which came under the Vote now before the Committee had not aroused interest in the House. They had listened to two speeches, both of which had interested the Committee deeply, though from different points of view. In the earlier part of the discussion several general points were raised by hon. Members, and he would ask to be allowed to reply regarding those matters at a later stage in order that the discussion might be concentrated at present on the topic which had been discussed by the three speakers who had preceded him. The general position of the case was presented with eloquence and earnestness by his hon. friend the Member for South Edinburgh in the admirable speech he had delivered. He would saynothingon that aspect of the question, but he would address himself to some of the criticisms which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In the first place, considering that the right hon. Gentleman had publicly thrown his great influence in Scotland into this controversy, he had hoped that they would have some practical suggestion from him in dealing with the difficult question before them. He must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having succeeded in importing into the discussion some matter which was at an
    158
    earlier stage of the debate ruled out of order by the Chairman or his deputy when he entered on the discussion of the Lewis rates. He would not follow the right hon. Gentleman into a general survey of the advantages and the disadvantages of the crofter legislation, because he conceived that at this stage the discussion of that matter would be out of order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to explain that the right hon. Gentleman himself assured me that the reference to Lewis made by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs involved a point in regard to local government. In this case Lewis was used as an illustration by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City in connection with the question of land congestion, and, therefore, it was legitimate.
    MR. SINCLAIRexpressed the hope that the Chairman would not think he was questioning his discretion. He was congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having found a legitimate opportunity for introducing into the debate a subject which hon. Members had raised and which was ruled to be out of order. He was not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into that sphere, He asked the House to note, for it was worthy of note, the position which the right hon. Gentleman had taken upon the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman never lost an opportunity of declaring himself opposed to the whole policy of the Crofters Act. In doing so, he did not give much practical help in solving questions such as those which the Committee had before them that day. The right hon. Gentleman knew, and the House knew as well, that the people of the Highlands of Scotland were convinced that the Crofters Act had been the charter of their liberty. It had been shown during the past eighteen months in Parliament that their sympathy had been with the Government in endeavouring to extend and amend the application of that Act. Now he came to the point under discussion, namely, whether the Government, as represented by the Lord-Advocate, the Solicitor-General, and himself, had in the exercise of their duties rightly administered the various statutes

    159
    which bore upon this matter. He agreed with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh that debates which involved criticism of individuals were especially disagreeable in that House. He had no intention of criticising or making any personal allegations against the proprietress of this estate. He would venture to say one or two words on the peculiar position which this estate occupied in Scotland in controversies of this kind. It was very noteworthy that on this estate alone had there been recurring difficulties of this kind. From 1883 onwards this estate had been notorious for the occurrence of difficulties of this kind. It was obvious to anyone who read the Papers presented to Parliament that the tenants were completely out of sympathy with the proprietress or rather with the estate management, because his hon. friend was perfectly right in reminding the House that they were profuse in expressions of personal respect towards the proprietress herself. It was true also of this estate, and it was true of no other estate in Scotland, that active intervention by the Government in these troubles had been necessary on three separate occasions during the period he had mentioned, and on two of these occasions the intervention was undertaken by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman himself. Large sums of public money had been involved, and, indeed, there was repeated proof that on no other estate in Scotland, he was glad to think, had the same kind of charges to be made. He would just enumerate them. The correspondence which had been laid before Parliament disclosed very clearly the endeavour of the estate management to throw the whole responsibility for these transactions and for the unsatisfactory condition of things on the Government. He asked the House to observe that these Papers made it clear, in the first place, that the estate management had been directed in accordance with a theory which was quite impracticable, and which had been condemned by all practical men who had been called to look into the matter. Repeatedly these tenants had been lectured and told to give up thinking of the land, and to do as the East coast fishermen did and restrict themselves
    160
    entirely to fishing. Over and over again it had been pointed out that to compare the condition of the people who lived and worked in this island with the position of men living along the coast of the Moray Firth, who had access to shops, markets, productive farms and to the ordinary articles of consumption, was entirely incorrect. These men must have land for their children who were growing up, and if there were to be houses built and made available for them land was essential. It was the pressure of circumstances upon them, and not any desire to break the law—the needs of themselves and their families—which was at the bottom of the mischief. As a matter of fact, the estate recognised this in a limited degree in 1883 when land was broken up by the estate in order to meet those needs. Even then there were restrictions placed upon the concessions given which greatly reduced their value. His hon. friend had pointed out that when the rents came to be valued again by the Crofters Commission later on they were reduced all round by an average of 35 per cent. There were other restrictions which he need not enumerate placed upon the holdings, and subsequently removed. All through these negotiations, and all through the long letters which detailed the history of the position of the estate, there were repeated proofs of the strong opposition of the estate management to any further concessions of this kind being given. The estate management might, in its own opinion, be right or wrong, but he said it had been universally condemned, and condemned by nothing more than by its failure to meet the circumstances of the case. He asked the Committee to look at the last transaction. It was under the Conservative Government that a portion of land was bought in this Island for the purpose of being broken up. The price paid was £7,500, and that land was subsequently valued by the Crofters Commission at £5,512. The loss was borne by the taxpayers. As Mr. Speaker said the other day: "All Governments are fair game." That was the view of the people who sold land. [An HON. MEMBER: Not always.] He was not dealing with always, but with this particular instance.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Lady Cathcart, at the moment she sold the land, had as good an offer, if not a better offer, than that of the Government.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid that there were always two ways of looking at these transactions. The Government took one view, and he thought it was the right view, when under unpleasant necessity they were obliged by public needs to step in and buy an estate. He would quote from the pamphlet, which the right hon. Gentleman had already quoted, in order to show the spirit in which the estate management regarded the offer of the Conservative Government. It said, referring to Lady Cathcart—
    "She had two competitors for the property, both extremely anxious to purchase."
    It was quite true in one sense that they were extremely anxious to purchase. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was a necessary step, and to describe his, Government as going into the market and competing eagerly with some other competitor for the possession of land in Barra, was to attribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government a view which they never at that moment held, What he said was that there was a loss of about £2,000 on the transaction. What was the doctrine which the Opposition thought should apply to such cases? Did they say that the Government should always bear the responsibility when difficulties of this kind arose, a situation: which they had no hand in creating? This difficulty was small compared with those which had to be met already on this estate. He said nothing on the question of the Trespass Act. His right hon. friend the Lord Advocate was far more able to inform the House as to the action; taken by the Government on that matter; he would only deal with the question as disclosed in the Papers, and low they were to meet the present difficulty. In the first place the Government had made a most generous offer to the estate management. He did not think he Committee recognised how great the obligations and how large the expenditure were which the Government had undertaken in this matter; but when they faced the facts they were met with
    162
    the same difficulties with which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were confronted ten years ago. The same unreasonable claims were made; the same restrictions were sought to be imposed upon them; and the same difficulties as to how the Government were to deal with the new agreement made with the tenant. There was not a word of recognition in these Papers of the responsibility which the past and present Governments had had to bear in this matter. Therefore, he asked the Committee to be good enough to follow him briefly on the point he had mentioned. The Government had been blamed for refusing to pledge themselves to pay compensation to the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the Bill of last year and the Bill of this year, as providing—which it did—for the payment of such compensation as must be determined, but he thought they had better deal with the present instance and not with another, an altogether different case.
    MR. COCHRANE: The Land Tenure Act of 1906 also imposed compensation being paid to a person leaving a farm.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid that that might be, but he was not dealing with that matter low; he was explaining the position of the Government in dealing with the Vatersay case. It was said that the question of compensation had been standing in the way of an agreement being come to in an amicable manner, which would have placed the land at the disposal of the settlers. That was an entire misapprehension. What were the circumstances? Some months ago, after parts of the land had been taken for the use of the settlers, and after cattle had actually been placed upon it, and a year after they had full knowledge bat petitions had been presented, asking that the land should be made available for settlers, the tenants and the proprietor entered into an agreement for new lease in August, 1906. If anyone complained that the tenant did not know what he was doing, that he had not measured the risks, that cattle belonging to the raiders, as they were called, were at that moment on his farm, then, if the tenant entered into that agreement

    163
    without some caveat he was very neglectful of his own interest. The tenant and proprietor were fully cognisant of the risks and difficulties attending the conclusion of such an agreement, and he contended that the compensation to be paid under such circumstances should come to a mere bagatelle. What was the object in bringing in the Government in this matter? The Government received no information, although this was denied by the hon. Member for North West Lanark. It seemed to him incredible that while the proprietor was in correspondence with an advantageous offer for the land, when obviously the possibility of the land having to be made available for these settlers was known, no information was sent to the Government of the expiry of the lease, and of the fact of a new agreement being entered into for a lease binding the tenant and proprietor for a period of ten years, and possibly for nineteen years.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that the first suggestion to Lady Gordon Cathcart of a scheme was made on 5th September, 1907, but the lease was arranged for in August, 1906, and actually came into operation at Whitsuntide, 1907, six months before any suggestion came from the Government.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid he was very well aware of that; but the hon. Member knew from the correspondence that he had not gone beyond the truth in his statement. The cattle were on the land of the raiders and were returned to them; and the cattle were again put on the land by the raiders. He asked what possible claim could there be against the Government under these circumstances? Besides, in this matter he stood for the taxpayers, and he knew that the obvious effect of bringing in the Government would be to invite both the proprietor and the tenant to put their hands into the pockets of the taxpayers. More importance had been attached to this matter than need be, because it was argued in the correspondence that this small matter was really the obstacle to a settlement. If the Committee had followed the details of this matter they would know, as those
    164
    who took part in the discussion of the Small Landholders Bill of this year and last year knew, that this question of compensation was a bagatelle compared with two other payments for which the Government had made themselves responsible. One was the loss on the letting value and the other the valuation of the sheep stock. The negotiations broke down because the estate management had deliberately and persistently declined throughout the whole controversy to accept any settlement which did not involve the handing over of the whole of the island to the Government by purchase. It had been repeatedly stated that Lady Gordon Cathcart had frequently made suggestions to the Government on this matter. He maintained that no suggestion to solve the difficulty had ever come spontaneously from the estate management at all. The suggestion came from himself in September, 1907, the difficulties having grown to such dimensions that it was impossible for him any longer to stand outside. Accordingly, he wrote to Lady Gordon Cathcart and urged that some settlement should be come to; and he put forward a proposal for making the land available to the settlers. Then came the refusal, and a counter-proposal which was equivalent to the purchase of the island by the Government.
    MR. COCHRANE: No.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid that the hon. Gentleman would see from the correspondence that the estate agents, the estate management, and the proprietress concentrated their attention throughout on the endeavour to obtain compensation for removing the tenant. Why? Because once the tenant was gone, the island would have been thrown on the hands of the Government, not as owners, with power to do with it as they liked, but as placing them in the position, on the one hand, of being responsible to the proprietor for the rent of the land, and on the other of being unable, on account of the conditions and restrictions imposed on the tenancy, to act freely and settle the people upon the land. That would have been the position of the Government. What would have been the position of the owner? Having

    165
    compensated the tenant at the cost of the Government, and having obtained a guarantee for the rent, she would still have retained the ownership and in some degree the control of the land. And all this within her legal rights! He declared that in essence that was an extreme assertion of the rights of property, and an extreme disregard of the duties and responsibilities of the possession of property. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the debate had quoted the case of Barra as illustrating the whole position of the Western Islands. It was a singular fact that of all the islands Barra was the only one which showed an increase of population. No other part of the Long Island or the other islands showed an increase of population. Even in Lewis, which was a highly congested and thickly populated island, there had been no such increase of population in recent years, as there had been in Barra. What was the reason for that difference? It was difficult to say. It might be that the communications with it were few, that the community of Barra were more primitive and backward, and that the allurements and inducements to flock to the city and the influence of education, which was having some effect on the population of the other islands, had not had the same effect on this island. There was, however, another factor which should not be lost sight of. Barra had a valuable fishery in the neighbourhood; it had many curing stations, and there was a good deal of traffic there at certain seasons of the year. The proprietress as well as the people shared in the benefits of this state of things. This lady drew rents for the curing places and water rents, and therefore there was a direct connection between this considerable population and the rents and profits of the owner of the land. It was held reasonable to take the view that landowners in large cities had some responsibility for the dense population upon their land. Parliament had recognised the responsibility of landlords if they neglected sanitary conditions and had slum property. It would be just as reasonable to call upon the Government to relieve those landlords of slum property in the cities as to call upon them to relieve the landlord of property
    166
    in islands such as that now under discussion. The Government must not be saddled with the whole responsibility. He believed that the offer of the Government had the approval of the Committee.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked what were the terms of the offer.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid the transaction was perfectly simple. Acting for the Government, he had, in the first place, suggested to the proprietor that settlers should be placed on the land under the Crofters Act. She replied declining to do so, and offering to sell the land. The Government replied that they could not accept, and that their offer stood. The proprietress then offered a scheme of her own, which was not identical with that of the Government, which would put the rofter tenants on her land, and which was detailed in her letter of 12th October, in the Parliamentary papers. The Government then endeavoured to adjust terms with the estate management. The contention of the estate was that the negotiations broke down on the question of compensation to tenants, and he had been endeavouring to show that that was not the real explanation of the difficulty. The compensation to the tenants was a mere bagatelle. The real effort of the estate had been to throw the whole island into the hands of the Government, who knew nothing about its capacities except on general information. The Government were willing to aid the proprietress in any scheme for settling the crofter tenants that she might formulate, but were not prepared to have the island thrown at them. The Government took the position which the correspondence disclosed, and on that he asked the support of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had uttered a general denunciation of the Government policy; but the proprietress would be as much at a loss as the Government to know what solution he proposed. The Government were anxious to see a way out of this difficulty. The situation was serious from every point of view, and its gravity had been intensified by the proceedings which had taken place in the Court of Session only last week. In the interests of all concerned in this matter, in the

    167
    interests of public order in Scotland, it was highly desirable that this controversy should be brought to an end. He hoped that would be brought home to all parties concerned by the debate, and that a way out of the difficulty would be found.
    SIR HENRY CRAIKcontended that the Secretary for Scotland had in his speech absolutely avoided dealing with the kernel of the case, and had dealt only with details which did not touch even the fringe of the question. The hon. and learned Member for South Edinburgh had made an apology for these law-breakers for whom he had acted as counsel before the Court, and although he did not make a direct personal attack on Lady Gordon Cathcart by name, yet as she was responsible more or less for the management of the estate it was impossible to settle this question without attacking her. He had known for many years the result of the management of her estates, and from his own personal knowledge of Lady Gordon Cathcart he could say that no one could be more careful of the welfare of tenants or more generous where generosity was called for. When responsible for the administration of the education of Scotland every appeal he made to her was readily answered. He was certain, and he spoke with the ordinary knowledge of those acquainted with these Western Highlands, that in many respects Lady Gordon Cathcart was a model landlord. For an illustration of that he need not go beyond certain expressions used by the Scottish Secretary himself. Over and over again he appealed to her to step in and help him, and said that the popularity of her name and the high esteem in which she was held by her tenants would be of inestimable advantage to him in carrying out his scheme. What were the real facts with regard tothismatter? These had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member. In the case which he referred to of the sale of a certain farm he fell into a considerable error; £15,000 was the price offered by the tenant of that farm, but he was induced to take a part for £9,500 and the rest was purchased by the Congested Districts Board for £5,500.
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid the hon. Gentleman had made a mistake. What
    168
    he said as to the price was correct, but one portion of land was purchased from Mr. McGillioray by the Congested Districts Board for £2,000, which brought up the whole price to £7500.
    SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his correction. Mr. McGillioray made an offer, and £2,000 was paid for another part of the estate, and apart from that £5,500 was the sum paid. Besides, did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the advantage of making a bargain of that sort with a single, certain, solvent tenant, a man of capital, whose rent would always be paid, was to be lost, and that the estate was to be filled with small crofters or cottars, whose rents were small and for the most part in arrear? Did the right hon. Gentleman remember also what a burden was imposed upon the landlord? The right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that the expense of providing education fell upon the rates, which wore paid almost entirely by the landlord and not by the crofters. The large education rate was not chargeable to any tenant whose holding was under the value of £4. If the value was below £4, the landlord was responsible for the rate, and might seek it from the crofter, if he could get it; as a matter of fact he never did. The hon. and learned Member had quoted another case in which he said there was thirtyeight years' purchase, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had only to look at the facts to see how totally baseless was his assertion. £600 was the price given for a farm of 60 acres, which, it seemed to him, was not an extravagant price where the annual rental was £50. That could hardly be called a purchase on "hard business principles." the phrase used by the hon. and learned Member, which he employed as a synonym for "ungenerous." What, he had to ask, and this was far more important, was the real object they had in view? What was for the good of the people, and whether the action of the right hon. Gentleman would promote that good or be detrimental to it. Everyone who had studied the position of these outlying islands knew that the great and central difficulty was the congestion of the population,

    169
    which, as had been pointed out by his right hon. friend, was in Barra growing at a rate almost unexampled, there having been an increase of 40 per cent, in a few years. Was it kindness to encourage these poor people to squat upon the land, to raise these insanitary and unwholesome dwellings at their own cost, under no supervision of any sanitary officer, and with which no sanitary officer could interfere without raising discontent? The real fact was that they could only bring content to those islands by encouraging the people to leave a soil which was too poor to yield sustenance to an increasing population. They could not make those districts fertile and suitable for economical small holdings. The migration of the population was the only way in which an economic condition could be brought about. But what course had the right hon. Gentleman taken with regard to the state where the disorder had arisen? Certain cattle were placed upon the land against the wish of the tenants and against the wish of the landlords. There was a refusal to remove them. The people proceeded from that a step further; they built huts upon the land and established themselves as squatters. Such an attempt was certain to be uneconomic and a failure; how uneconomic was shown by the pamphlet which had been quoted, and most of the statements in which had been impugned by the hon. and learned Member. But those statements were founded upon plain facts, for which chapter and verse could be given. In regard to the extension of the squatting system in the Island of Vatersay, the right hon. Gentleman had been asked by Lady Gordon Cathcart to suggest a remedy. "Have you," she asked. "inquired whether there is a water supply on this island." No answer was given. The right hon. Gentleman prepared to institute an inquiry, but from that day to this he had never published the result of that inquiry. Lady Gordon Cathcart's own men of business had made the distinct statement that, according to their own surveyor, there was no water supply such as was necessary for a large population. That statement was not contravened by the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to
    170
    make further inquiries, but he had declined, or, at all events, had failed to do so. Lady Gordon Cathcart said to the right hon. Gentleman: "If you desire to make this experiment, which I think entirely wrong, injurious to the people, against their best interests, likely to prove economically a failure, take the land yourself, or else pay compensation to my tenant, and divide it as you like; I will submit to your arrangement." But the tenant was not to be compensated adequately, and there was a refusal to purchase. Why a refusal to purchase? If the Secretary for Scotland thought he could manage this estate better than Lady Gordon Cathcart and her advisors, and if he thought that he would force her to establish an uneconomic, unthrifty, insalubrious, wasteful system in the island, was it fair on any ground or principle to say to her: "No; I shall not purchase. Take the responsibility, which will rest with you. I shall not compensate your tenant, but I shall leave you to try it." The right hon. Gentleman said: "Why should I relieve Lady Gordon Cathcart any more than I should relieve the landlord of a slum district in a town?" Yes; but the right hon. Gentleman, had turned the district into a slum, or into something analogous. Lady Gordon Cathcart was not like some landlord in the slum area of a town who gathered his rents from an impecunious population. She had attempted to arrange matters on what she thought was an economic basis, which, in the long-run, would be the most healthful and beneficial for the inhabitants. It was the right hon. Gentleman, who was turning this district into a slum, who was creating conditions which would be insalubrious, with an insufficient quantity of water, with crowded dwellings, and with a soil from which no ingenuity or possible device could extort a living for the number planted upon it. Could anything be more unfair, more unequal, more unjust? After all, was not the landlord like any fellow being, entitled to something like justice? Was he to be compelled to establish what he was advised, from long experience, would be an uneconomic, wrongful, hurtful state of things, was he to be forced to bear the responsibility of it; was he not at least to be relieved of his land, of

    171
    which they who pressed this arrangement upon him should take the responsibility themselves? But worse still. The right hon. Gentleman had avoided what was, after all, the strongest central point of this matter. Whatever they had done, he thought they had done wrong to the landlord, and on no moral ground could they support or defend their position. But they had done a far greater wrong. They had broken in the minds of these people any respect for the law upon which their good, as well as the good of the landlords, depended. He quite agreed that the islanders were a law-abiding and law-loving people. There was a singular absence of crime amongst them. For twenty miles they would see law and order preserved by the blue coat, of the single policeman, who seldom had to interfere. What did that depend upon? It depended upon the fact that the policeman in his uniform was a symbol, no more than a symbol, but behind which was the power of the whole realm, which, however slowly it might move, the breaker of the law knew would eventually and relentlessly overtake him in protection of the society to which he belonged. The right hon. Gentleman had brought contempt for the law in place of respect for the law. He had, not only by his inaction, but by the positive encouragement that had been given by himself and his supporters and the law officers, shown these poor people that if they defied the law they would have sympathy in high places, and would ultimately find themselves, not only protected and free from any consequences which followed the infringement of property in other places, but that they would find that they were actually defended in asserting the right that they had lawlessly put in force, and that pressure of the most severe kind was brought to bear upon those who had been wronged by their action.
    SIR. J. DEWARsaid the Leader of the Opposition had stated that he suspected this was engineered by agitators. As he was the only politician who visited the island he must be the culprit. The advice he had all along given these men was that they should not break the law, and should not take possession of the land, but should continue constitutional agitation. But these men apparently
    172
    knew better than he did. They knew that this was the only sort of argument that seemed to appeal to the management of this estate. There had been several instances mentioned where the management of the estate had given new holdings, but in every case it was preceded by an outbreak of what was called lawlessness. In 1900 they seized some land. Shortly afterwards the Secretary for Scotland in the Conservative Government bought land and divided it into small holdings. Afterwards the same thing took place in South Uist, and there an extension of the holdings took place. Could they blame the men when they saw that line taken by the management of the estate? He did not approve of their action or apologise for them, but he thought there was a great deal of excuse and explanation. He had nothing in the world to say against Lady Cathcart. She was in every respect a benevolent, kind, and considerate lady, who had done a great deal for these islands, and had done a great deal that they did not see or read about in the newspapers. He knew of his own knowledge that she had done a great deal for the people of the islands, but the management of the estate was very bad. As far as his experience went it was the only badly managed estate in he Highlands, and the only estate where here was any trouble, except, perhaps, on the Congested Districts own estate, and that was a proof that the State was always a bad landlord. He wished to draw attention to, not a misstatement but a half statement, made first by the Leader of the Opposition, and, secondly, by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. They seemed to suppose that the squatter cottars were all the younger sons of crofters. That was not the case. The proprietors of these estates in many cases had made the cottars. All these lands were peopled by crofters not so very long ago, and they were cleared off by the proprietors of the estates. They were turned from crofters into cottars, and their crofts were given to great farmers with sheep farms, and many of the crofters were compulsorily emigrated to Canada, and many of them were forced down to the sea shore and told, as they were to-day that they ought to make their living out

    173
    of the sea, because the land could not give them a living. Lady Cathcart's predecessors cleared off in the year 1851 between 1,000 and 2,000 people. That was not a case in the dark ages. It was within the recollection of many people living in the island. One old man on a neighbouring island had told him that he remembered his father being taken away from his croft on the west side of the island in handcuffs and put down in a bog on the east side and made into a cottar, and that man's son was a cottar to-day. There were a great many cottars of that kind for whom the estate was directly responsible. These people since 1851 had constantly desired to get back to their holdings. A man had told him that as a young man he had expected to get a croft, and now that he had grey hair it seemed as far off as ever. That man was not the younger son of a crofter. The management of the estate had all along said if was a mistake to give them land. He did not think it was economically unsound, and the people themselves did not think so, and it could be proved that it was not. If they were compelled to buy land at 25 per cent, more than it was worth it was, of course, uneconomic, and the rents were uneconomic, and they could not afford to live on it. He had no doubt on the subject at all, and any unprejudiced witness would say the same thing. But where there had been settlements on economic grounds, and with some consideration both to the landlord and the tenant, they had been successful, and the people who were now occupying them were in a better position than before they got possession. The poor rate was high and the proportion of paupers was very large. But 90 per cent, of the paupers came from the cottar and the landless class, and only 10 per cent, from the class of men who had got land. He did not want to go into the record of the dealings of the estate with the Government, but a succession of Secretaries for Scotland had had dealings with these estates, and in every case had been more or less the victims of circumstances. In 1902 the estate which had been mentioned was purchased, one part by a tenant and the other by the Congested Districts Board. All along there had
    174
    been an agitation for cottars to get a living as crofters, and this land was the best and most fertile in the district. But just before negotiations reached a head a long lease was granted to a tenant who said he would not give it up unless he was allowed to purchase his part of the estate, and he made his offer. The Secretary for Scotland was helpless and had to agree to the conditions, and the result was that the best part of the land was bought by the farmer and was consequently unavailable to relieve the congestion, and the crofters were sent to the moors and the bogs as usual, and they had there again the spectacle that they had in so many parts of the Highlands, of the crofter being on the poor soil and the farmer on the rich and fertile soil. Under all these circumstances he thought the Secretary for Scotland was justified in taking a stand on behalf of the taxpayer, and in refusing to do more than he did. But what was to be done to meet the present difficulty? They could lot go on sending these men to prison, and keeping them there. It was a perfectly hopeless plan. It was impossible, and he was sure it would be repugnant to Lady Gordon Cathcart. He hoped most sincerely that the Government or the proprietors would again open negotiations. He did not think the Government should buy the land. All the power the Board had was to buy land and sell it over again in small holdings. It had been proved that the tenants did not want to buy. They had already refused to buy. He hoped negotiations would proceed and that they might get a settlement in the interests of the cottars. He agreed entirely that even if all the land was put in the hands of the crofters they would not have done all that ought to be done. No doubt there was a very large population there—larger perhaps than ought to be there—but he had carried belief in the work that had been carried on by the Congested Districts Board in the matter of technical education, and he believed more ought to be done in that direction. The life of a West Highland crofter, was something likethis: he went to school until the age of fourteen, then went home to his

    175
    mother, and forgot all his English and a good deal of his learning in school. About eighteen he went south to find work, and being only fit for labouring work, the result usually was that in the end he found himself in the West Highlands, an old man with no trade and no money saved, and became a charge on the over-burdened ratepayer.
    And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

    OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY (BAY OF FIRTH) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [BY ORDER].
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at a quarter past Eight of the Clock.

    SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTI- MATES, 1908–9).
    Postponed Proceeding on Question proposed on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £11,600, be granted to His 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, 1909, for the Salaries and Expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Office, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, including a Grant in Aid of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Fund."
    Which Question was, "That a sum not exceeding ,£10,600, be granted for the said service,"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson,) —resumed.
    SIR JOHN DEWAR,continuing, said the West Highland young man had no chance to learn a trade. He agreed that the Congested Districts Board was doing excellent work in teaching trades to some of the young men, and he hoped that that part of their work would be continued and encouraged. They did not want to drive the inhabitants of those islands away, but they wanted to induce the more enterprising and ambitious of the inhabitanrts to enter
    176
    upon a wider sphere, and in order to fit them to battle with life they should try to make them better equipped than they were at the present time. They ought to do a good deal more to teach them trades, and the Congested Districts Board ought to be as active in this respect as they possibly could be. He was for giving as much land as possible to those men because that improved not only their social condition but improved them in every other respect. He urged the Government to enter into negotiations with the proprietors of those islands.
    MR. WILKIEsaid it appeared to be the practice of some hon. Members to commence their speeches by saying they were not going to take up much time, and then proceed to do just the opposite. He was not going to declare himself either way. There were two kinds of people in this world, those who were willing to work and those who were willing to let them. His experience of the House was that it contained two parties, those who were willing to legislate and those who were not willing to let them. Last session he put in many hours on the Scottish Committee upon the land question, and if that Bill had been allowed to pass this trouble would never have arisen. The people on whose behalf he rose to protest were anxious to get a little bit of land to live upon, and they had been called by the Leader of the Opposition parasites. All he wished to say was that if those parasites who prevented the land legislation passing last session had allowed the Bill to go through the present difficulty would never have occurred at all. He was not going to enter into any tirade against Lady Cathcart. He did not know her, but he had read the statement issued by her clever agent, and if that was all the case they could make out for her, then he thought it was a very bad case indeed. It appeared to him that they were now repeating the history of that particular island of 1851, when the people were driven from the land of their birth to seek a living in Canada in order to give place to deer and sheep. No wonder the Secretary of State for War under these circumstances was

    177
    complaining of the want of success of his Territorial Army. In this particular part of Scotland in the past men of stamina and strength were reared, who had proved to be the bulwark of this country in time of danger, and yet they had been compelled to make room for sheep and deer. They had been told that in Scotland they had some good landlords. He almost wished that they had not had those good landlords, because if they had not existed the present system would have been swept away long ago. The inhabitants of those islands were sick of waiting for a little bit of land upon which to spend their energy; they were being driven to the mainland, and would prefer to suffer imprisonment rather than starve. Why did they continue a system which inflicted such hardships upon the people? He thought in this matter the Government ought to take their courage in both hands, and take over all those islands and be done with the difficulty. That would incur far less cost to this country and it would be a mere bagatelle, because at the present time they had to go to the expense of having gunboats and ironclads around those islands in order to protect the interests of the landlords. He had been asked by his own constituents to intervene in this discussion. He desired to urge the Government to take the wider and bolder step, and if they found that their legislation was not passed by the other House he hoped they would make this a financial question, and have all those islands placed under Government, thus settling the question once for all. Let them put human life before the interests of mere property or deer.
    MR. MORTONsaid that personally he regretted that instead of having a discussion upon the local affairs of Scotland they had had only a party political debate on a particular land question. That had, to some extent, deprived them of the time they had hoped to have to consider many other affairs affecting social government and other matters which came under the Scottish Office. With regard to the Vatersay question he thought the Government ought to have done something. It was the duty of the Government to govern, and
    178
    when they had in power a Government with such a large majority it was their duty to find out some means of getting over a difficulty of this sort instead of letting the people starve and be sent to prison. They were told that the difficulty was in regard to compensation to the tenants. But they had not been told how much it was. He was afraid that the Government had been standing too much on their dignity, and would not move in the matter because the other parties did not come to them. A Liberal Government ought to be above that sort of thing, and should endeavour to do what was right without regard to mere dignity of office. There were few places in the Highlands of Scotland where there was congestion. There was congestion in Lewis, but that could not be said of Sutherlandshire, where the population was less now than it was 100 years ago. If the people could get the land in that county, it would support 50,000 more than were there at present. It should be remembered that the land had practically all been stolen from the clans within almost living memory. None of those who got possession of it after 1745 had any real title to it, except the fact that they had collected rents since then. He was told that Edinburgh lawyers had made up various titles for them in the same way as certain titles had been got up in London. The land formerly belonged to the clans who paid small tribute to the chiefs and no doubt had to perform certain duties in connection with their clans. Unfortunately, a good deal of the land had been sold to other individuals. He did not say that Lady Cathcart or her immediate predecessors had stolen the land. Undoubtedly, unless the land question was settled in the interest of the people, the people might say presently: "We will resume possession of our own, and you may look out for payment where you like." The people all over Scotland were law-abiding, and they were willing to pay a fair rent for the land with fixity of tenure. That they now offered, but they might not always offer it. As to the poor men who were now in prison in connection with the Vatersay affair, he asked why the Government could not reduce the sentences. It should be quite satisfactory, so far as

    179
    he law was concerned, if, having been convicted, they were given twenty-four hours imprisonment. That would have vindicated the law. He might remind the Committee that when a rich American shot some gillies in the Highlands he was not even found guilty. He asked hon. Members to look at the difference between the treatment of the poor men at Vatersay and the treatment of the rich American. Why should not the Government intervene and say that the law had been vindicated, and that the men should be released, so that they might go back to work, so that their families should not starve? Some people were surprised that there should be any sympathy with these men. There was bound to be sympathy with them in view of the way they were treated, and of the fact that they were not allowed to work for a living. They were willing to work in the cultivation of the land if they were only allowed to do so. It was the duty of the Government, and especially a Liberal Government, to see that something was done whereby people could be allowed to get a living. A Liberal Government had been in power for nearly three sessions, and what had they done for Scotland? Three years ago they were told by the Lord-Advocate that Scotland must wait. Well, Scotland was waiting, and he hoped the Government would endeavour in some way to deal with the needs of the Highland population. He was perfectly certain that something could be clone by the Congested Districts Board. That Board had a balance last year of about £40,000. Therefore, it could not be said that there was no money to deal with the question. If there was no other means of dealing with the question, it was certainly the duty of the Congested Districts Board to employ the money which they had in hand for the purposes on which they were authorised to spend it. Why did the Board not do that? If they did not do it, why did not the Secretary for Scotland make them? He himself had continually complained that the Congested Districts Board had abstained from doing a great deal that Parliament evidently meant them to do. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said in 1905 that it would be the duty of the Liberal Government to colonise our own
    180
    country. So far as the congested districts of the Highlands were concerned, that work was in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland and the Congested Districts Board. There was a great deal of work which might be done in building necessary piers and harbours, making roads, and providing steamboat services. Since 1906 he had been asking the Board to carry out a great many improvements in Sutherland which admittedly they had power to do, but they had not done anything. The Secretary for Scotland ought to ask them to do something, or ask the House to get rid of these officials. He had pleasure in acknowledging the work which the Postmaster had done in improving the mail services in the Highlands. What the Postmaster-General had done showed that a great deal could be achieved by way of administration to help the people without coming to Parliament at all. He hoped the Postmaster-General would do more, and he (Mr. Morton) thanked him for what he had done. He could not associate himself with the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs in congratulating the Secretary for Scotland on the amount of work he did. His own opinion was that the right hon. Gentleman did not do enough. They could not get him to answer letters himself as other Ministers did. His Department sent no written reply to the Questions which were addressed to him as other Departments did. The Congested Districts Board had taken away a steamboat service which was formerly provided between Lochinver and Loch Clash.
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN(Mr. CALDWELL,): That comes under the Post Office Vote.
    MR. MORTONsaid the steamboat service was put on by the Congested Districts Board in the autumn of 1905, and taken off early in 1906. The Secretary for Scotland was responsible for the action of the Board, and, therefore, he believed he was in order in discussing the matter now.
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has himself given an answer on the point of order. It is because there is no money asked in the Vote for the

    181
    steamboat service that he cannot discuss the matter now.
    MR. MORTONsaid his complaint was that the Board had got the money and had kept it. The Congested Districts Board had £20,000 on this Vote. However, as those matters were found to be out of order, and there was no other way of discussing them, he would put Questions on the Paper. He had been endeavouring to get those reforms, which were more administrative than anything else, by writing letters to the Secretary for Scotland, but he found the letters were of no use, and, therefore, he would trouble the House by putting Questions. He had another complaint to make. The Secretary for Scotland did do thing himself but blocked all attempts on the part of private Members to promote legislation with regard to trawling and other matters. He trusted that the Secretary for Scotland would endeavour to get the Congested Districts Board to do something with the money which they were going to vote that night to carry out the wishes of Parliament, and assist those districts. That was not only necessary to prevent their depopulation, but to allow the districts to be made fit for a much larger population than now existed there. If they gave the people of Sutherland the use of land, as was recommended by the Deer Forest Commission, and as they had the power to do, they would do much better service than by driving the people to the large towns and cities. Apart from the land question he had been asking for a steamboat service from Tongue to Lochinver, so that the people might have an opportunity of sending their spare produce to market. He had met with no success from the congested Districts Board, and he would be inclined to refuse this £20,000, unless they spent some of it in that direction. He was certain that it was the duty of any Government, and especially of a Liberal Government, to do something whereby the people could get an honest and decent living. It was not a question of money in this country. They could vote money by millions for all sorts of purposes abroad, and what they wanted was the Government to spend money in order to colonise our own land and
    182
    make it useful, and for the benefit of the people who tried to live on it.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of this Vote.
    MR. MORTONsaid that they could not take this £20,000 to South Africa; they wanted some of it spent in Sutherlandshire to carry out various improvements required to enable the people to get a livelihood and to protect human life. He wanted some of the money to assist in building boat-slips, piers, and other matters which were useful for the people. He had no intention of saying anything offensive of any Minister. It was the system he objected to, and because the best was not done with the money voted by Parliament. He regretted that the Secretary for Scotland was not present. He had seen him look in and go away again. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was rather afraid of discussion, and he was sorry to say anything to cause him to run away. He never ran away himself, and he would have liked the Secretary for Scotland to remain and answer his questions, for, after, all, Ministers were not the masters, but the servants of the people, and of this House particularly. There was another matter to which he wished to call attention. That was the sentence of five years penal servitude passed on a man named Simpson for doing something in Glasgow. Several Questions had been put to the Secretary for Scotland on the subject, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to reduce that sentence. They had been unable to get any explanation, in answer to questions put to the right hon. Gentleman, and it seemed a very hard case. A petition had been signed by over 40,000 people in Scotland and sent to the Government late last year or early this year, asking for a reduction of the sentence. So far as he could ascertain from reading up the case, he did not think that the Court had got hold of the right individual; he believed that this man Simpson had been made to a large extent a scapegoat. When they considered the light sentences passed in many other cases, five year

    183
    seemed a hard sentence; and he would ask the Secretary for Scotland, when he came back from his tour round the House, to try and be merciful in this case, and recommend some reduction of this harsh sentence. The young man was ruined in any case, but when he compared his with other sentences—he did not want to mention other people's names—imposed at trials at Edinburgh. he thought it was the harshest sentence he had ever heard of. He would like to hear some reason why the Secretary for Scotland could not be merciful in this case. He also trusted that something would be done to reduce the sentence on the ten poor men who were in prison over the Vatersay case. Bearing in mind that nobody seemed to know who was to blame in that matter—some said it was one person, and some said it was another, and some blamed the Government—and seeing that the law had been sufficiently sustained by the conviction, he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would be merciful and release the men so that they might get to work at home. These men were only too anxious to work for their families and to be allowed an opportunity of doing it, which they could do as well as anyone in the world. Again he expressed a hope that the Secretary for Scotland would be merciful.
    MR. AINSWORTHsaid that before the discussion came to an end he should like to say, in support of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, that it was absolutely necessary that a case like Vatersay should be dealt with immediately. It was only typical of what might happen where there was extreme poverty on the one hand and a desire to remain in their own country on the other. Since the failure of the Government to get a proper Land Bill passed, suggestions had been made from all parts of this House and in another place in regard to the matter. No doubt much had taken place at Vatersay which was to be regretted. He did not want to speak about the estate management. They all sympathised with the lady Who was placed in the position of proprietress, and who had to go to
    184
    lawyers and factors for her information. It was not to be wondered at that there was great difficulty in getting anything done. What was wanted was better machinery, as that which existed had broken down. The Scottish Office could do nothing; the Congested Districts Board could only act by buying the island and reselling it to the cottars; the Crofters Commission and the county council of Inverness-shire had also completely failed to make a settlement. All this was proof that new and improved machinery was wanted. He represented the constituency adjoining that where this occurrence had taken place, and he could confirm every word that had fallen in regard to the matter from hon. Members on that side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition had said that all the difficulty had arisen from the fact that the cottars had no right to be at Vatersay. Why were they there? It was because they were the descendants of the men who had occupied the soil in former generations. And he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was to that population that we owed a very large share of our Indian and Colonial Empire. Many hon. Members had seen the long list of public men, distinguished soldiers, and Governors-General who came from the West Highlands and had fought our battles in all parts of the world, not only with sword and rifle, but with axe and spade. The Leader of the Opposition said that these men, had no right to be there; but where were they going to put them? What was wanted was better machinery. The Leader of the Opposition said that these men had no right to be where they were, and he asked what was going to be done with them. It should be the duty of the House next session to answer that question. It was absurd to say that there was no future for them there and that they must either drift into the towns or find their way across the seas. We wanted these people there. It would be a suicidal act if we did not keep alive the old home in the old country, where they could have an opportunity of bringing up their children mentally, morally and physically better fitted to become useful citizens of the Empire than would be the case if they were forced into the crowded streets of a large town——
    MR. MOLTENOsaid the Leader of the Opposition had told the Committee that these men had been led away by agitators to commit a breach of the law. That was a most unfortunate remark, because nothing could be found in the documents before the Committee in any way to justify such a statement. There was a great deal in the Report to suggest the opposite. This had been represented as a raid and an unprincipled demand by these men on the land of their neighbour, but what were the facts? The Sheriff was sent down to investigate, and he very wisely did not go down escorted by gunboats, he went down quietly with his wife and saw these people. The leader of the movement was a fisherman named Duncan Campbell, whom he saw and spent three hours in conversation with. Eventually Duncan Campbell took him to Vatersay in his boat, and showed him what had been done. That was not the action of a criminal. He asked Campbell why he had done what he had, and Campbell's reply was that he and the others could not hope to find occupation in their country; that he had worked hard all his life but had got nothing; that neither from Lady Cathcart nor from the Congested Districts Board could he get help; that their fathers and grandfathers had been possessed of these very lands in the past; and that these men had never given up their claim to them. Yet the hon. Member for Lanarkshire had said that these men had gone there without a shadow of a right. The Sheriff said he had thought it right to give Campbell's statement in detail as being the best way to bring to the mind of the Secretary for Scotland the true character of this raid. The Congested Districts Board also sent down a Commissioner, who said that he found the people moderate in their talk and spirit and other circumstances, and that the want of potatoes among those having families must be a very great hardship. From the evidence of the Report, therefore, the Committee would see that the idea that these people were led by agitators to come forward in this manner was erroneous. The facts of this case broadly were that the greater part of these islands was tenanted by three or four large farmers, and that the other
    186
    inhabitants lived among the rocks and streams and bogs. These men were the descendants of those who used to have the whole. They took the proper steps. They applied to the representatives of the landowner and obtained no satisfaction; they went to the parish councils, who endeavoured to assist them, and were unsuccessful; they then went to the county council, who sent down a deputation who spent nine days in investigation, and confirmed the report of the Sheriff. They reported that land was desirable, that it could be got, but that it was impossible to get it on reasonable terms. These people had gone to every authority, and they finally pointed out that if they went back to Barra it meant starvation that it meant leaving their country or starving. Under these circumstances it was very hard that suggestions should be made that political motives actuated these men. It was simply the effect of the laws. The system of landlord and tenant had broken down. It had operated unfairly. These men were the product of injustice in the past. He did not blame the landlords but the system. It was the system which had produced this difficulty; it was not the result of action such as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. There were no shops. If these people wanted milk they had to keep their cow; if they wanted carrots or potatoes they must grow them. A small amount of land was to them an economic necessity. The difficulty was not peculiar to this part; it had arisen all over Scotland. In the three most southern counties of Scotland, Berwick, Roxburgh, and Edinburgh, in the last thirty or forty years the agricultural labourers had been driven out, whilst in the Highlands the rural population had decreased enormously. In every county of Scotland this had been the case; therefore it was not a thing confined to this particular spot. The Leader of the Opposition said that these men should not be there! Then where should they be? They were the decendants of the people on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman also complained that the had been unduly prolific; but the increase had only been 37 per cent, in forty years, which was the proportion all over Scotland, so

    187
    that that charge could not be made against them. This process had been going on for many years. Adam Smith drew attention to it in his time and pointed out how disastrous it was. Sir John Stanley drew attention to it also. They were really in the face of a great social problem as to the existing land system. It was that which had created the difficulty. This was one of many cases which had occurred in the past, and ought to be very carefully considered by the House. It was suggested that the Small Landholders Bill of last year would have met the case. That suggestion was based upon a misunderstanding of the Bill. He thought the Secretary for Scotland was perfectly correct in taking up the firm attitude he had done, and he hoped he would maintain that attitude and that a settlement might be arrived at.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYthought everybody in the House sympathised with the poor misguided men who were in prison. There was no doubt that if they had not been misled they would not be where they were now. He did not want to indulge in recriminations. The Government, he thought, had received its full share of the blame, and he would rather let bygones be bygones and direct the attention of the House to what was going to happen when the men came out of prison. They were martyrs to-day; but in a few days they would be heroes. He did not know how it was going to end, but he certainly thought it was the duty of the Government to face the possibilities of the future. They did one thing which everyone would agree was wise. They sent down the Sheriff, Mr. Wilson, to see what could be done. He had no doubt he did his best; and everybody would regret that he failed to accomplish his object. He suggested two alternatives. The first was that of allowing Lady Cathcart to workherremedyas she pleased, and the second was to let the Congested Districts Board buy either the island of Vatersay or such part of it as Lady Cathcart would part with on reasonable terms so that they might give allotments. This might involve a capital expenditure of £6,000 or pound;8,000 and should, Mr. Wilson supposed, only be contemplated
    188
    if the island was reported upon by a competent man as suitable for the settlement of crofters as regarded the water supply. What had the Government done to discover whether the water supply was right or not? They had not heard what the Government had done to find out whether the island was fit for crofters or not. So far, they knew nothing. Were they for the sake of £6,000 or £8,000 to set the heather on fire? He thought it would be a world of pities, and he most earnestly implored the Government to take heart of grace and put an end to this discreditable and lamentable state of affairs.
    MR. SEDDONsaid he had heard many strange theories in. his time, but the most interesting theory he had ever heard was that which came from the Leader of the Opposition that night, in referring to these particular islanders. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they were parasites, and had given as his reason that they were unable to provide for their own wants and the needs of ordinary civilisation. If men who were unable to do that were to be called parasites, the right hon. Gentleman need not go to the Highlands to discover them. He would find many of them on the other side of that building. This was a great subject, and yet it was contained within a narrow compass. The hon. Member for St. Andrews Burghs had said that the men who were in prison were martyrs to-day, and that tomorrow they would be heroes. In the ordinary course of his duties, possibly as an agitator, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, he would be within the zone of this disaffected area in the coming recess. He knew very well the class from whom these men had sprung. They were not likely to be inflamed by the oratory of any agitator who might go into their midst. They were a body of men slow to move, who thought and reasoned for themselves, whose whole conduct demonstrated that they had tried every method before going to the length of breaking the law. The House was told that they were law-breakers, but, if so, who made them law-breakers? The men who compelled them to break the law were the men who had created the situation. They or their ancestors had

    189
    driven these men off the land. In the case they had a titled lady who, to his mind, was the Clanricarde of the High lands. She possessed 14,000 acres of land, and there was a population of 2,500. They wanted to follow the pursuits of their fathers and live on the land. She said they should not do so unless they complied with her terms. The Government had tried to make arrangements, and had made proposals. She had made counter proposals, and would not alter them; the result was that the men were exasperated; bound by all the ties of kinship and love of country, they had been driven to desperation, and that night they were languishing in gaol, because they asked a fellow-creature the right to live. It did not suit her ladyship. It possibly did not suit her inclination, and, when a person would deliberately force upon these men this sad alternative, he could come to only one conclusion, viz., that she had not much interest in their welfare. It was the future they had to deal with. He regretted that the Government had endorsed the sentences, which to his mind were vicious in the extreme. The Government could with justice and without any dereliction of duty have reduced the sentences. If they did not do so, the men would come out with a sense of outraged justice, and when these men were roused gunboats would not cow them. These were the kind of men who made civil wars. It would be highly improper and foolish in the extreme for the Government to hold out no hope to these people that there would be an improvement in their future conditions. They did not ask for affluence; they were content with a frugal living. He appealed to the Government in the interests of law and order to give some hope, so that, instead of being firebrands when they emerged from prison, they would be the messengers of hope that land would be given, that they would have the right to earn their living, and that everything would be done to bring contentment and peace to unhappy people who wore law-abiding and a credit to the country.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCEthought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had really
    190
    struck the right note. So far the debate had not been satisfactory because no practical proposal had been advocated on either side as to the way in which the situation should be dealt with. They had had a certain amount of eulogy of Lady Cathcart and a certain amount of denunciation of the Government. It was remarkable that though the Leader of the Opposition had in January last at Glasgow attacked the Lord Advocate in violent language, he had not embraced the opportunity afforded by that day's debate to engage that learned Gentleman at close quarters. What had the Government done? What could it do? It could not enforce the provisions of the Bill which was lost in another place. It did not want to put in force the provisions of the Act of 1865, which had been passed for a totally different purpose. But there was going to be a great deal more of this kind of thing if some remedy was not applied.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: If you ask me what I want the Government to do, I want them to accept the recommendations of Mr. Wilson and buy Vatersay for from £6,000 to £8,000. That would put an end to the whole trouble.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid people did not want purchase in Scotland. They had seen from the examples of the island of Skye and Sutherlandshire that purchase by the Congested Districts Board was not a method of settlement which commended itself to the crofter population. What they wanted was to be able to hire their land on reasonable terms.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Well, the Government can hire it to them.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid the proposals of the Government to Lady Cathcart were not accepted. The Government made proposals to that effect which failed owing to the impossible conditions which were attached by Mr. Macdonald, the agent.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYsaid it only failed on the question of compensation to the tenants, which the Secretary

    191
    for Scotland said was a bagatelle. Why they could not face the bagatelle he did not know.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid the Secretary for Scotland had pointed out that that was really quite a subsidiary matter, but the really important matters were the other conditions which were attached. The Congested Districts Board had not the right to hold land in the way in which alone these people would have it, and they would require legislation toen able the recommendation of the hon. Member to be carried out. What they wanted now was some hope to be expressed by the Lord Advocate as to the way in which the Government was going to treat the question. He did not know why the hon. and gallant Member should call these people misguided. Who misguided them?
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Some of your Party.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid he was not aware of any agitators ever having gone to Barra to mislead the people.
    SIR J. DEWAR: I am the only politician who visits the island and my advice to them is not to break the law.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I meant nothing personal, and I should like to apologise if I gave that idea.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid that all through the debate it had been assumed by speakers on the other side that the Government were somehow to blame for the present position. The Government had no blame whatever. They had done nothing to mislead except by trying to pass legislation which hon. Gentlemen opposite had helped to destroy. That was the only misleading that had been done by the Government, and he did not think any reasonable person would say that that was a kind of thing which ought to be thrown in their teeth. The hon. Member for the Universities who had accused the Government of having encouraged these people to break the law seemed to forget that this was not the first time that breaches of the law of this kind had been perpetrated. The little pamphlet issued
    192
    by the friends of Lady Cathcart showed that the same kind of thing had been going on of a large number of occasions before. The Government had no responsibility and he thought the Secretary for Scotland was fully justified in his disclaimer of any intention to accept the responsibility. The words of Sheriff Wilson in his Report showed that these unfortunate people were fully justified morally in the action they took. They had no other course to adopt. It made one's blood boil to read the kind of conditions under which these unhappy people lived in this island. There was a clause in the letter which Sheriff Wilson saw, written by Mr. Macdonald, Lady Cathcart's local factor, to a cottar, which really showed what the grievance at the bottom of the matter was. The last sentence of the letter was this—
    "If you persist in building, the erection will be pulled down forcibly, or Lady Cathcart's agents will take immediate action against you, as house building by cottars in the immediate vicinity is no longer to be tolerated."
    They were living in insanitary conditions, and when they attempted to obtain a spot of ground on which they could live in a healthy way they were imprisoned for contempt of Court. Every word of the Report fully justified morally the action of those unhappy people, and he hoped they would have an indication from the Lord Advocate of some possible kind of remedy.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE,)said the Papers which had been placed before the Committee disclosed, it was said, a case of harsh and unjust treatment, and the accusation would be found to rest on two quite separate and distinct grounds which it was eminently desirable to keep separate and distinct. The first was that the Government had refused to put in operation the Tinkers Act against certain men who had planted thirteen plots of potatoes on two acres of ground. These men were perfectly well known to the proprietress. They had been born and bred on the estate. They were not tinkers, but sensible, reasonable, courteous men holding the view that if land was not to be had they were entitled against the wishes of the proprietress to take possession of it, and they were the men against whom they were

    193
    asked to take criminal proceedings, and to brand as criminals. That they absolutely declined to do, because the offence they committed was quite obviously a civil offence for which the law provided ample remedy. If the prorietrix took steps they must be in the Civil Court. It was said they would be costly and troublesome, but that was no justification whatever for the Government taking criminal proceedings. This proprietrix was in exactly the same position as hundreds of other proprietors, that there was no Sheriff's Court or Sheriff's Officer at hand. Secondly, they were told that this proprietrix deserved more than usual consideration at the hands of the Government because she had carried generosity to its utmost limit in her treatment of her tenants. But that would never be listened to for a moment as a ground for taking criminal proceedings. Upon looking back on the situation the Lord Advocate and he were satisfied that they had come to a right conclusion in advising the Secretary for Scotland that this was not a case in which the criminal law should be set in motion. He did not deny that they took a much wider view than the mere narrow legal aspect of the question. They had naturally to consider what the effect of taking criminal proceedings would be upon the sentiment and the feelings of the people, and whether or no taking criminal proceedings held out any reasonable hope of immediate restoration of law and order, and they came to the conclusion that it would act in exactly the opposite way, and that if they desired to foment exasperation and intensify the feeling of injustice and wrong which these men undoubtedly cherished they could not take a surer or straighter course than to call in the police. On that resolution they looked back with supreme satisfaction, because all the events which had subsequently taken place justified it. The very paltriness of the remedy of fourteen days imprisonment or 20s. fine was enough to bring the whole thing into contempt and exasperate these people. If, as he believed, it was the object of Lady Gordon Cathcart and her advisers to impress these men with the serious view she took of the situation, proceedings in the Civil Court were much better calculated to secure
    194
    that end than calling in the aid of the police. The Tinkers Act was never intended to apply to such a case, and if it had been, for twenty-one years it would have been applied by any landed proprietor in the outer Hebrides and every crofter would be liable to be removed. The second accusation against the Government was that they absolutely refused to give compensation to the tenant on the condition of his surrendering his lease. A clamorous demand had been made by the cottars for crofts in Vatersay and, rightly or wrongly, these men had asked for land on which to cultivate their potatoes and feed their cows, and they planted themselves on the ground. The Government agreed at once to pay the diminished value of the remainder of the land after crofts had been carved out of it, but they refused to pay a wholly undefined and indefinable sum for compensation, which should be a mere bagatelle, but would have grown to an enormous amount if it were known that the Government were going to be responsible. They still desired that the scheme of carving out crofts should be adopted ultimately, so that homes might be provided for the cottars. With regard to the case alluded to by the hon. Member for Sutherland where a sentence of five years penal servitude had been imposed, the man had been found guilty of one of the gravest offences ever brought before a Criminal Court. He did not think the punishment was unduly severe under the circumstances. The evidence was exceedingly clear. The prisoner took advantage of the recent Act, and gave evidence on his own behalf, but he was nevertheless found guilty by the jury. He did not think under those circumstances his right hon. friend was wrong in refusing to mitigate the sentence.
    MR. MORTON: Was it not a question of the handwriting?
    MR. UREsaid there was no doubt whatever about the handwriting.
    MR. COCHRANEcontended that the Trespass Act of 1865 absolutely fitted the case under discussion. In 1891 a similar case arose, and the raiders were brought before the

    195
    sheriff, who said that to take possession of land for which a man was paying rent was pure robbery. Those men were sent to prison for fourteen days, and the raid came to an end. That was a far more satisfactory way of dealing with a case of the kind than by procedure in a Civil Court, and he did not doubt that the men who were now languishing in prison wished that the Lord Advocate had taken the view of his predecessor, and had dealt with their case under the Trespass Act, with its maximum penalty of £1 or fourteen days imprisonment. He was surprised at the argument of the Solicitor-General for Scotland on the compensation claim of the tenant. Why did the Government refuse to pay compensation to the tenant who was dispossessed of his farm? The Solicitor -General said it would be an undefined claim. Not long ago the learned Attorney-General took part in the debate upon the Land Tenure Bill of 1906, in which the fullest provisions were inserted as to arbitration for a tenant in regard to compensation for being deprived of his farm. Was that what the Solicitor-General now called an undefined claim, when it had been made the subject of arbitration? When the hon. and learned Member reflected he would see that he had produced a very false analogy. Here was a case where a tenant had had more than one lease of his farm. He had paid his rent regularly and was anxious to remain on his farm, but to meet the situation he was willing to give it up. In every case where they got rid of a tenant, even at the end of a lease, compensation had to be paid. That was what the Solicitor-General for Scotland railed an undefined claim, and that was the sole reason why the Secretary for Scotland had felt himself unable to deal with the case by way of compensation. It was a misfortune that there were no trades for the crofters, who were a fine, well-mannered people, but occasionally their intelligence was clouded by strange notions upon land tenure. In regard to the fishing industry they did not show that persistent, continuous adherence to it which was exhibited on the East coast of Scotland.
    MR. WEIR: They have no harbours.
    MR. COCHRANEsaid he did not want to criticise them too severely. He was glad to see that the Congested Districts Board were endeavouring to do something for those young fellows. They had sent over 100 of them to cities like Glasgow and Greenock and endeavoured to apprentice them to trades. Those young fellows had not, however, been brought up to the work, and they were inclined to throw it up. The main thing that was wanted to encourage this experiment was more money. The air of romance which invested the crofters had characterised many of the statements made by hon. Members opposite during the debate, in which charges had been made that could not be substantiated or justified. Even the Secretary for Scotland had made the extraordinary statement that his principal reason for not settling with the tenant as to compensation was that the proprietor and tenant had entered into a new lease and that they should not have entered into a new lease because they knew perfectly well that there were trespassers on the land.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I said that they entered into it at their own risk, knowing all the circumstances.
    MR. COCHRANE: Exactly so; and he thought that they should not have entered into it because they knew they were threatened with trespassers and cattle on the land. Did they not also know that there was a law in the land? At the end of a lease of a Highland sheep farm the landlord had to take over the sheep stock at a valuation, and by a custom which had grown up an artificial valuation was put upon the, sheep stock. It was called the acclimatisation value, and it sometimes exceeded the actual value of the flock. Many a Highland landlord had been ruined in the process. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would take a fair and just view of the matter. They were asked by the Solicitor-General whether their view was that the Government should have taken criminal proceedings. His answer was no, but there were many steps which might have been taken before entering on criminal proceedings, and which would have been effective.

    197
    What happened in Vatersay? Lady Gordon Cathcart arranged with the tenant of Vatersey to let twenty acres of land for potatoes. In a letter to the Congested Districts Board dated 15th March, 1906, it was pointed out that "The tenant relied on the Government preventing any invasion of his farm such as had been publicly threatened." The agitation for more land continued, and Lady Cathcart relied on the Government preventing the invasion of the farm and protecting the farmer. When the land was seized the Secretary for Scotland had an opportunity for saying to these people in plain language that their action was illegal in invading the land, and that the Government would not support them in such action. When asked to put the matter before the people in that way, the Secretary for Scotland absolutely refused to take that course. The Congested Districts Board also farmed land in Scotland, and they were threatened with trespass. A meeting was held at which a resolution was passed that a raid should be made on the farm of Kilmuir. The Secretary for Scotland was asked by the intending raiders in the most naif manner whether he approved of this raid, and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was a curious commentary on the enforcement of the law. He said that the illegal seizure of land could receive no assent at the hands of the Government and would entail most serious consequences. In that case the land was the property of the Congested Districts Board. He had not the right hon. Gentleman's exact words, but that was a paraphrase of what he said. That was wise action to take, and he believed it had a most salutary effect. These people were, so far as he knew, deterred from taking the action which they intended to take. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman in the case of Lady Cathcart's land give the Vatersay people the same strenuous warning as was given in the case of those who proposed to take the land of the Congested Districts Board? Lady Cathcart asked the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate to put down lawlessness and protect the tenant, or to purchase the farm and compensate him.
    198
    Exactly the same words were used by the sheriff who was sent down by the Secretary for Scotland. Then Lady Cathcart said while the civil action was pending that she desired to make a final effort to bring about a settlement so that these misguided people might be saved the penalties which would be imposed by the Court. Some vague and unsatisfactory proposals were made in regard to the sheep stock. The Secretary for Scotland said he had no doubt that the Congested Districts Board would be prepared to purchase at a valuation. Lady Cathcart had been in the same predicament before. She sold some land which was to be devoted to the use of the crofters, but the crofters would not take it up. She had to compensate the tenant, and take over the sheep stock at a valuation and the Board did not pay her back. Then there was an unfortunate experience in regard to a school, and the result was that Lady Cathcart had to provide the school herself. In regard to all these matters the right hon. Gentleman had, perhaps, hardly dealt in a generous manner with Lady Cathcart. He thought the tenant came extraordinarily well out of the whole circumstances. The tenant said he was willing to renounce the lease if he got compensation, and a price for the sheep on his tenancy after valuation by arbitration. He thought those were very reasonable terms. Moreover, the tenant said he was willing to come to Edinburgh to see the Secretary for Scotland or any member of the Board and explain his terms. That was a fair and reasonable proposal. The Secretary for Scotland gave a blank negative; and the right hon. Gentleman was largely and seriously to blame for all that had subsequently taken place. Lady Gordon Cathcart was perfectly right in what she said. She was not prepared to compensate the tenant because she did not wish to remove him; and he did not see why she should be called upon to make an experiment which she had every reason to apprehend would be a failure. That was her past experience, and he hoped, from something that had fallen from the Secretary for Scotland, that he might alter his mind on this point about paying compensation. He regretted some things

    199
    that had happened and that there had been something in the nature of a campaign against Lady Gordon Cathcart. He was certain that hon. Members who knew the district must be aware that she had earnestly done her best to meet an extremely difficult situation. Questions had been asked in the House that contained insinuations and covert attacks upon a lady was had no means of replying, and no opportunity of putting her case rightly before the House. [An HON. MEMBER: What Questions?] There was one Question by the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire. Generally, it stated that the proprietor of Vatersay owned the whole of the Island of Barra, and that all attempts by the cottars to obtain land by peaceable means had failed. Anybody who knew the facts knew that that was not true. When Lady Cathcart got possession of the island 8,000 acres were held by crofters. At present there were 15,500 acres held by crofters, leaving only about 3,350 acres in her own possession. Could she do more, or could it be said with truth that the proprietress owned the land in the neighbourhood and that she had refused all attempts to obtain land for the cottars? Was that a fair way to describe the position? The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to that question said: "Stated generally, the facts are as stated." He thought some clearer statement might have been given by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. WATTsaid that he had asked a Question in regard to reduction of rents because he wanted to get the accurate facts in view of this debate.
    MR. COCHRANEsaid that the Question might have been put at a more convenient time instead of immediately
    200
    before the debate, when a very full and emphatic answer might have been given. He was, however, not aware of the Question put by the hon. Member. He was referring to the Question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for Invernessshire as to 120 years purchase having been paid for land at Vatersay when the Secretary for Scotland said he could not commit himself to rapid calculations. The right hon. Gentleman must have been aware that the calculation would not have taken four minutes.
    MR. A. DEWARsaid that he asked the Question as to 120 years purchase having been paid by the Government.
    MR. COCHRANE: For what?
    MR. A. DEWAR: For sixty acres of land which had been let at 2s. an acre.
    MR. COCHRANE: These sixty acres were carved out of the best part of the farm.
    MR. A. DEWAR: No, they were not.
    MR. COCHRANEsaid that they were a portion of the farm and the tenant had a right to put a considerable value upon those 60 acres. The hon. Member said that the 120 years purchase was at the average rent of the whole farm of some thousands of acres. The sixty acres had been used for growing potatoes; and the value of these acres was taken as the average value of the whole farm. When the Question was asked, the Secretary for Scotland said he was not a rapid calculator and could not give an Answer. At any rate he might have said that he had sent down an impartial valuator of his own from the Congested Districts Board and that his valuation of the sixty acres coincided with the purchase price. The right hon. Gentleman in the advocacy

    201
    of his case should have been more moderate in his statements and not have said that the question could not be answered. The purchase price was £10 an acre or £600, and out of that the tenant had to receive compensation by way of re-adjustment of terms. When the lease expired the tenant said that that was the most valuable portion of his farm, and that was confirmed when the proprietor and factor agreed with the tenant to reduce the rent on account of these 60 acres, from £400 to £350. Was that 120 years purchase?
    MR. A. DEWARsaid that this was a peninsula isolated from the farm, swept by wind in every direction. They said it was worthless. They planted potatoes and the sand came up and covered them up, and they were never lifted. The land was worth so little that they abandoned it. It was worth nothing at all.
    MR. COCHRANEsaid in that case the hon. Member would certainly vote for the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman because the Congested Districts Board reporter reported that this land was a fine loam and suitable for growing potatoes. A still more subtle form of insinuation was indulged in by the Lord-Advocate. He attacked this lady directly and spoke of harsh landlordism, oppressed tenants, and of a landlord unfortunate in his relations with his tenants. The statement of the Secretary for Scotland of this lady attacked by his colleague was that he was well aware that she was genuinely and deeply concerned for the welfare of the people of the district. His conclusion upon the whole matter was that there had been a series of bungles and failures. There was the failure to purchase, the failure to
    202
    compensate, the failure to enforce the law, and above all the failure of the Scottish Secretary to recognise the great responsibility of the duties which fall upon him. The result had been that ten or twelve of these misguided persons were in prison. Was this to go on indefinitely? When they came out were they to go back to Vatersay and finally to prison for a longer time? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be deterred by the bungling that had taken place from doing what the Committee thought would be a just thing for him to do. Let him carry out his own recommendations, purchase under arbitration, enter into possession of the land in dispute, and having got it settle these people upon it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW)regretted that from the Leader of the Opposition they had had in the course of his speech the maximum of heat and the minimum of light on the situation. The right hon. Gentleman had attacked the Administration and had supported this reduction on grounds that he did not advocate in this House, but which he did advocate with some violence of language at Glasgow. This was his first and only opportunity of answering that speech; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he now had reason to agree with or vary from those violent denunciations. The mover of the Amendment had charged him with not having adopted the Trespass Act of 1865. That was a matter in which he was personally concerned as the adviser of the Secretary for Scotland. That Act had not, except in one instance, during its whole exist-once, been attempted to be applied in circumstances like the present. He would state broadly that no lawyer of repute in Scotland who had ever written on the subject or spoken from the judicial bench

    203
    had treated that Act as applicable to the present circumstances. The Act did not apply to a case of disputed possession which involved a question of heritable right. The Act was dealt with by Professor Rankine. It was passed for the purpose of preventing strolling tinkers, gypsies and others, squatting without permission. Accordingly, the law stepped in to give a short and effective remedy for cases of temporary nuisance; but this little Act of Parliament in 1865 did not upset the entire law of Scotland, and he was bound, in advising His Majesty's Government and his right hon. friend, to deal with the law of Scotland as it was found by legal authority. The Lord Justice Clerk (Moncreiff) who long hold the high office he now filled, knew the whole question of social disorder well; and, in the case of Her Majesty's Advocate v. Macrae and others, on the Bench laid it down that—
    "Trespass constitutes in the general case a civil wrong and not a criminal act; and the proprietor's remedy is by civil writ or action for damages."
    Accordingly, if he had ventured to upset the law of the land as laid down by high authorities in order to suit the convenience of any individual landowner in the whole of broad Scotland, he could imagine no one who would have been more eloquent than the Leader of the Opposition in charging him with having violated the law and order and sound precedent and with having exorcised the law in an oppressive and tyrannical manner. They knew that he would have laid it on in language of that kind. Having dealt with the greatest lawyer on landownership in Scotland and the greatest Lord-Advocate so far as term of office and knowledge of social conditions were concerned, he had next to find what the greatest master of the Criminal Law in Scotland now living, the present Lord
    204
    Justice Clerk, had said in a case similar to this on the floor of the House—
    "What," he said, "is the necessary consequence? The necessary consequence is that every man must defend his own property, or we must turn every person who can be sworn to be a trespasser into a criminal. The law in this free country says 'no' to that."
    He was treated as an abettor of disorder because he declined to say "yes" to that to which his distinguished predecessor declared the answer to be "no." He asked what the position of the Lord-Advocate was in reference to the holder of the office of the Secretary for Scotland. The Leader of the Opposition was Secretary for Scotland when the last pronouncement was made in the House of Commons, and he was confronted, as his right hon. friend was now confronted with a disturbance of this kind. Did he talk of the Trespass Act and enter into all this pettifogging argument about it? Not at all. He rose and said that all the whole law and gospel—he was paraphrasing in a Scottish way—on the subject had been declared by Lord Advocate Macdonald in the passage he had just read to the Committee. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, when he charged the Government through his right hon. friend and himself, with aiding and abetting disorder might, notwithstanding his wonderful fund of oblivion, have recited his own approval of the law as laid down on a similar occasion. It was not a new situation. As Secretary for Scotland he had repeated troubles of this kind. There were a good many troubles in regard to Lady Gordon Cathcart's estate long ago, and the troubles had continued ever since. During the time the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the Government various seizures of land took place in the Outer Hebrides, at Vatersay, Northbay and Goligarry (Barra), at Ormielate, Millin and Bornish (south-West),

    205
    in North Uist and in Harris, arid in none of these cases was the criminal law brought into play by him. The civil law was alone employed, and in every instance employed effectually. Looking back, therefore, he could say that had he violated the authorities as laid down, he would have been met with a further precedent and would have been advising the Secretary for Scotland to adopt the course which one of the most distinguished predecessors he could have had declined to adopt in similar circumstances. So far, therefore, from aiding and abetting the violation of the law, he had uphold the law and practice of the kingdom of Scotland. Of that action he had no repentance. There was a great body of authority for the advice he gave; there was authority approved in practice and in deed by the Leader of the Opposition himself. They now had to consider the situation of Lady Gordon Cathcart. He was sorry to say she had taken umbrage because he had said that her relations with her tenants were unfortunate. Could any human language have been more moderate in describing the situation? If they had not been unfortunate, why were they debating this question? This was not a single instance, it was the culmination of a long series of unfortunate relations between her and her tenants. She might be all right and they might be all wrong, but whoever was responsible, these relations were unfortunate, and that was what he had said. He had been asked what he meant by saying that he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had removed the veil of secrecy from the, transaction. He would tell the Committee. Lady Gordon Cathcart—and when he used that lady's name he meant her lawyers—through her agent demanded that the Government should put the criminal law into operation
    206
    against her own people, contrary to the advice tendered to the Secretary for Scotland. The Papers showed that the lady was determined to have the Government proceed, not according to the advice of the law officers of the Crown, but according to her own lawyer's advice. And if the House would look on page 5 of that document they would see how that was borne out. He knew quite well that when this veil was removed there would be a good deal of disturbance, and that was the reason he did not wish it removed. This was the request made by those lawyers—
    "In our letter to you of the 14th March, 1906, in which we requested the Government to take action under the Trespass Act to put down the lawless movement then in its beginning, we pointed out that civil process was ineffective, difficult and expensive, while proceedings at the instance of the criminal authority could be easily taken."
    He was surprised that any Member of the House holding any sense of responsibility should sanction for a moment the suggestion by one subject of the Crown that others should be treated as criminals, contrary to advice tendered to the Crown and in accordance with the advice given by his own lawyers in order to save expense and trouble. That was what actually happened. He need not point to the futility of the Trespass Act in such a situation. If they fined them over and over again the question would have been exactly where it was and it would afford no settlement on general lines. The gravamen of the complaint was not altogether the Trespass Act, but they wanted prompt and effective and strong action. Did the Committee realise what that meant? Did it mean a gunboat? Hon. Gentlemen opposite were silent about that. Did it mean the importation of troops? All these things were possible, but what they had done

    207
    had been far more effective. They had referred the proprietress to the civil remedy. She had taken it, and now, at this moment, ten men were in prison for two months in consequence.
    MR. YOUNGER: That is surely worse than the other remedy.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: They get sixty days instead of fourteen.
    MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that his hon. friend did not seem to understand that the other course would not have been effective because it would have settled nothing, whereas now they had the judgment of the Supreme Court. Let the Committee picture the situation. Year after year these people had made an appeal to their landlord for more land. There were nearly 2,500 people in Barra, while on Vatersay, across the sound, with nearly 3,000 acres of land, there were only thirteen people. For a matter of a quarter of a century their demand had continued. The parish council on its election took a large share in endeavouring to put into effect the Allotments Act of 1892. They appealed to the county council of Inverness. The county council sent down a commission which was nine days on the spot, and unanimously reported in favour of land being granted, there being, according to the verdict of that commission, land available. From that moment till now eleven years had elapsed, and the county council had done nothing, and these people had been left, driven almost to desperation by the action or inaction of the county council.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that no land has been given out for small holdings in the last thirteen years?
    MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he had said nothing of the sort. He said that these people wanted land in the Island of Vatersay, that the county council and parish council and the sheriff all thought they ought to have it; the landlord thought they should not, they had not received it to this day, and they would not receive it until there was legislative power to impose compulsion. He protested against the assertion that they had done anything in any way to impair law and order. He asked the House, was he right to decline the request that he should have the criminal law put into operation? Was he right to decline to give advice that a gunboat or the military should be sent? Was he right to refer the proprietress to her civil remedies? Lady Gordon Cathcart had after all taken his advice. She had brought her interdict and her petition for breach of interdict, and she could not have moved a step in that direction without his consent as Lord Advocate. She had appealed for his consent, and in five minutes she had got it, and he stood thus absolved. And, therefore, he had assisted in the operation which alone was the legal operation. When that was done and the petition was lodged in Court on January 15th, on January 17th the right hon. Gentleman used this language in regard to a case pending before the Court. The right hon. Gentleman, he would take it, did not know it, but it was a fact. The petition was raised on the 15th January, service was made on the 16th January, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech was delivered on the 17th January. ["No."] It would not do to deny a fact.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It really was not a case pending in the ordinary sense. There was no question of fact before a

    209
    Court in regard to which anything which either I or anybody else could say could pervert justice. ["Oh!"]
    MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid according to that it came to be an argument as to what was the kind of question before the Court. That was not the point. The point was that there was a question; the case in short was sub judice. It was with regard to people accused that the language was used that they had committed a gross outrage, that they had not the least "legal or moral justification," and he said that that was language which Courts of the realm might have had to take very serious notice of. He had been reproached by the Member for the Newton division that he did not advise a remission of the sentence. But this case was a curious case, in that the sentence had been pronounced by the Court in a matter of contempt, and one could not, according to precedent, interpose in that matter. It would be most irregular for the Executive to interfere with the traditional functions of Judges in that way. And if even the right hon. Gentleman's conduct in prejudicially commenting on a case sub judice had been called in question, and something had happened to him in consequence—with the best will in the world he could not have interposed. Administratively the Government had held law and order absolutely sacred. With regard to the legal position, he signed a petition and did everything that was necessary, and he had advised in that sense. As his conduct had been challenged, it was only right to say that, so far back as March, 1906, very shortly after he assumed office, a resolution was sent to him from a meeting of the crofters of Iachdar district accompanied by reports of the language used at the meeting suggestive of possible violation of the
    210
    law, and he thought it right to say that he wrote a letter in which he tendered his advice with all who had influence with the people in the district "that they should confine themselves to the assertion and agitation of their demands, but in no respect whatever attempt to take the law into their own hands or do anything which might either cause or provoke a breach of public order." It was in those circumstances and with that record that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had encouraged these people to break the law. It was too bad; and he asked the House to support him in that. The accusation was wholly unfounded and there was not the slightest ground for the assertion—and he hoped in his term of office there never would be—that he had in any respect countenanced a breach of the law or of order in this country. They had in a difficult time been called upon to hold evenly the scales of justice, and he contended they had done it with absolute impartiality. He did not much care to refer to the time-worn argument of law and order in such circumstances. Those who attempted to defend an autocracy of this nature, had they not a great responsibility for their words? Then with regard to the present proprietress, he was quite certain that if she went to this estate, even for one hour, and saw these people her policy would change, and change at once. But if these people were in their present position from not obeying the law, it was his duty to see that the law was maintained, and maintained impartially. He did not wish to say one single hard word, but in the three minutes, which was all the time that remained to him, he would remind this landed proprietress that the further imprisonment of these men lay not with him, not even with the Court, but with her

    211
    alone. If she wished for modification of their imprisonment, and expressed her wish that the imprisonment of these men should no longer be continued, the men would at once be liberated according to practice. He hoped she would take that step. He hoped that another thing would be done, that on both sides of this dispute there would be a desire to come to some arrangement under which these properties could be developed under conditions which both sides would recognise as equitable. The recent negotiations had yielded nothing except the demand that the entire island—in fact, three islands of the Hebrides—should be bought from her and broken up before she would allow any of these people the chance of being planted upon their plots of land. He hoped that Lady Cathcart would incline towards peace. The Government had sustained the law. That peace and order might prevail—that was his desire, but it would
    never have prevailed if he had violated those great precedents to which he had referred or if he had sanctioned a course absolutely unjustified by the history of our Courts.
    MR. WEIRasked if he was right in assuming that there was a motion before the Committee to reduce the whole Vote.—[Cries of "Divide, divide."] There were various other matters—
    MR. EUGENE WASON MR. EUGENE WASON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That a sum not exceeding £10,600 be granted for the said service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 175. (Division List No. 138.)

    AYES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Magnus, Sir Phillip

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Moore, William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nield, Herbert

    Banner, John S. Harmood

    Forster, Henry William

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Starkey, John R.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt(Peckham)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff' sh.)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Guinness, Walter Edward

    Talbot Lord E. (Chichester)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Bull sir William James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Younger, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Keswick, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Sir

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N)

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Beale, W. P.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Allen, Charles P.(Stroud)

    Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S.Geo.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Clough, William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Brace, William

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Branch, James

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

    Barlow, Sir John E (Smmerset

    Bright, J. A.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Barnes, G. N.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Byles, William Pollard

    Cremer, Sir William Randal

    Crooks, William

    Lambert, George

    Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lamont, Norman

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co)

    Lewis, John Herbert,

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Dillon, John

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Rowlands, J.

    Duckworth, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Seely, Colonel

    Erskine, David C.

    M'Crae, George

    Shackleton, David, James

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Maddison, Frederick

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Massie, J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Menzies, Walter

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Gill, A. H.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Glover, Thomas

    Mooney, J. J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Thompson, J W. H. (Somerset, E

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

    Gulland, John W.

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Toulmin, George

    Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

    Murray, Capt. Hn A C. (Kincard)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Ure, Alexander

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r.)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

    Verney, F. W.

    Harmsworth, R L. (Caithn'ss-sh

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walsh, Stephen

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Partington, Oswald

    Williamson, A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Jenkins, J.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wood, T. M' Kinnon

    Joyce, Michael

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Mr.

    Kettle, Thomas Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E)

    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    NATIONAL MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

    COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [LORDS], POST OFFICE (CONSOLIDA- TION) BILL [LORDS], AND STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].
    Ordered, that so much of the Lords Message [18th June] as relates to the Companies (Consolidation) Bill [Lords], Post Office Consolidation Bill [Lords], and Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords], be now considered.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)
    Lords' Message considered accordingly.
    Ordered, that a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with

    215
    a Committee of the Lords, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of 18th June, to consider the Companies (Consolidation) Bill [Lords], Post Office Consolidation Bill [Lords], and Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords].
    Committee accordingly nominated of—Mr. Beale, Mr. Cave, Mr. Arnold Herbert, Mr. Hills, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Stewart-Smith.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
    Ordered, ''That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith, and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to add two Lords to the said Joint Committee."—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

    SCOTTISH ESTIMATES.
    On the Motion for adjournment,
    MR. PIRIEasked whether, in view of the ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means, which had precluded discussion of several Scottish subjects on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, the Patronage Secretary would make representations to the Prime Minister with the view of giving another day for the discussion of Scottish Supply. Not a word of discussion had taken place upon the administration of the ten boards that came under the Scottish Office, and he hoped another day would be given.
    MR. WILLIAMSONstrongly supported this request in view of the importance of the subject to be discussed on the Fishery Board Vote. It would be lamentable if no further opportunity was given to discuss other important subjects.
    MR. BARNESsaid he desired to raise the question of the unemployed in Glasgow who he thought had a substantial grievance against the Scottish Office and the Local Government Board. He hoped the Government would give them an opportunity of discussing these very important matters.
    MR. MORTONsaid that no opportunity had yet been given them to discuss the question of the trawlers, and he hoped another day would be given.
    MR. C. E. PRICEcomplained that the Report of the Scottish Local Government Board had only been issued that morning, and that it appeared to Scottish Members as if there was a deliberate intention on the part of the Scottish Office to deprive the Scottish Members of opportunities for discussion. That was not fair, and if it happened again next year, he would look upon it as an attempt on the part of the Scottish Office to prevent the Committee exercising that control which it had a right to exercise.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,)said he would be very glad to convey the views of hon. Members to the Prime Minister, and whilst it must be obvious to the House he could not promise at that moment either a whole or even half a day, yet in the event of a general desire being expressed that further time should be afforded for the discussion of Scottish Estimates he had no doubt it would be favourably considered by the Prime Minister.
    Adjourned at twenty-two minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Tyne Improvement.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Ards and Bangor Railways Bill—(Petition for additional Provision).—Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday next.
River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.].—Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
North East London Railway Bill; Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill.—Read 3a, and passed.
Honourable Artillery Company Bill [H.L.]; Tollemache Estate Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Draycott Gas Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Orders Conformation (London) Bill [H.L.]—(No. 1 Order); Post Office Sites Bill [H.L.]; Doncaster Corporation Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]—Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth and the Lord Wynford be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Leigh and Lord Lochee; read, and agreed to.
London and District Electricity Supply Bill [ILL.], London Electric Supply Bill

3
[H.L.], London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.].—Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill.—Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Denman for the Lord Herschell), and reported from the Committee. (No. 111.)
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1.) Bill, Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2.) Bill, Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3.) Bill [H.L.], Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.].—Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a (according to order); An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 16. (1908.)
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain amending Article 5 of the Agreement of 25th November, 1875, respecting the Postal Service between Gibraltar and Spain; signed at Madrid, 9th April, 1908.

  TRADE REPORT ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4013. Japan (Dairen (Dalney)); No. 4015. China (Hankow); No. 4043. United States (Consular District of Philadelphia); No. 4044. Hayti (Republics of Hayti and Santo Domingo); No. 4045. Spain (Consular District of Seville); No. 4046. France (Pondicherry and Karikal); No. 4047. Spain (Canary Islands); No. 4048. Italy (Province of Lecce).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1908, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1901.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order made by the Leyton Urban District Council, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the urban district.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1902.
  Report by the Board of Trade respecting the applications to and proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1902, during the past year.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: There are well-founded rumours, my Lords, that this Bill is to be read a second time. I, therefore, cannot acquiesce in silence in that Reading of this amending Bill, which, I now understand, will be accepted by the House. It is an instance of political vituperation to which we are accustomed in Ireland. We may, however, congratulate ourselves on the fact that the Bill has not been introduced in another place; as a consequence, the landowners and planter tenants with whom it deals will not be subject to the abuse which usually emanates from a certain party in that place who are adepts in that manner of speaking.
  In Ireland we know that the Bill is introduced in consequence of a decision of the Court of Appeal with reference to the powers of the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907. The appellant in the case was Lord Clanricarde, and the Estates Commissioners were the respondents. Three questions

  5
  were put before the Court, the most important of which was—
  "Are he Estates Commissioners debarred from acquiring the said lands under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants, Act on the grounds that the lands are tenanted lands and in 'occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry?"
  The last words are taken from the Act itself. The answer was in the affirmative, and the appellant won his case. Therefore your Lordships will understand that the Bill is aimed at Lord Clanricarde and his planter tenants. I may compare it for a moment to a wasp; it has a sting in it which is meant to stick in its victim. We are told that when a wasp stings it flies away and dies; but this is a more venomous insect, for its sting affects all owners and all planter tenants in Ireland.
  As this is an amending Act, I ask your Lordships to consider, for a moment, the Act it amends, and what was said by the noble Earl who leads the House when introducing the Act of last year. The noble Earl then said—
  "This measure, as we fully admit, is only very partially economic and is mainly political."
  I think that is perfectly true. Two great questions with regard to Ireland have been decided upon and legislated upon—first, the reinstatement of evicted tenants; and, secondly, the protection of planter tenants. The question of the reinstatement of evicted tenants, I may remind your Lordships, originally arose in definite form in Clause 15 of the Irish Land Conference Report, in which it was stated that—
  "Any project for the solution of the Irish Land question should be accompanied by a settlement of the evicted tenants question upon an equitable basis."
  Clauses 2 and 3 of the Act of 1903 deal with those tenants, but the machinery of that Act regarding evicted tenants did not run, in the opinion of the present Government, quickly enough, and the Evicted Tenants Bill of last year was passed.
  The debates on the matter are fresh in your Lordships' memory. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in moving
  6
  the Second Reading of the Bill of 1907, said—
  "I need not quote any of the statements of Mr. Wyndham to that effect. They have been quoted in this House before—
  The noble Earl was refering to the actual merits of the particular evicted tenants. He went on—
  "But your Lordships will remember that he used in this connection the phrase that bygones ought to be bygones, and that it was not wise to stop to inquire from what reason and under what circumstances the evicted, tenants had lost their holdings."
  The noble Earl disposed of the matter in that graceful manner which one cannot help admiring, though not always agreeing with. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition hit the right nail on the head when he said—
  "We are told—I think the noble Earl used the expression—that bygones should be bygones."
  Lord Crewe here interrupted the noble Marquess by saying that he had quoted Mr. Wyndham's expression. The noble Marquess continued—
  "I will take it either from the noble Earl or from Mr. Wyndham. It is a good expression. I should like bygones to be bygones, but I want to know a little about some of the bygones with which you are going to deal under this Bill."
  I have found a quotation which can be aptly applied to this measure. I give it to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for what it is worth—
  "As we have a conceit of motion coming, as well as bygones; so have we of time which dependeth thereon."
  The Government, I know, are anxious about the Bill, and desire to get it through quickly.
  Now, what are the bygones on the Clanricarde estate? I have heard much regarding them, and have at last ascertained some actual facts. This estate was one of the lowest rented properties in Ireland. At the time of the passing of the Land Act of 1881 the rental was £23,350; it is now £19,000—a reduction of only 16 per cent., which covers voluntary reductions as well as Land Court reductions. The average reduction throughout Ireland by the operation of the 1881 Land Act and the fixing of fair rent for second term was nearly 40 per cent. This is taken from statistics published by the Land Commission.

  7
  On this estate, rents being low, many tenants declined, and many still decline, to make use of the Land Court. In 1886 the Plan of Campaign was started on this estate. A great number of tenants refused to pay rent, not because they could not, but for other reasons. Two hundred were evicted for non-payment of rent under the Plan of Campaign. But before proceedings were taken, these tenants were offered 20 per cent. abatement on the current year, and anyone who paid one half year's rent was given time. Three hundred tenants on the estate paid on these conditions; sixty-three evicted tenants applied for reinstatement and were accepted, and 140 refused to come in. The owner naturally had to look elsewhere to let these farms and he let them to a number of bona-fide agricultural tenants, who are now called planters. A sum of £2,000, at least, was expended by the owner, and the new or planter tenants, it is said, spent at least £2,000 more. These planter tenants for many years carried on their business in a satisfactory manner, and good relations existed between them and the other tenants. So much for the past.
  Let us now come to the present. The evicted tenants question was dealt with pretty fully in the Act of last year which is now upon the Statute-book. It became law on 28th August, 1907. The planter tenants on this estate were singled out by agitators and boycotted. The shop-keepers, as is usual in some parts of Ireland, refused to sell them the necessaries of life, and the labourers were circularised not to work for them. Yet we were told that we must pass that Bill in order to heal differences! On 6th October a public meeting was held at Portumna. The chairman was the Rev. Joseph Corcoran, the parish priest, and, to his credit, he deprecated boycotting. But, notwithstanding that, Mr. John Redmond, the leader of the Nationalist Party, spoke these words—
  "I am surprised to hear that any one of them (the planters) would be unwilling to go; and if there is found anyone who is not to go with compensation, that fault will be entirely with the people, and it is absurd to think there can be any peace in the district. I am quite sure the majority of them will agree to go, but whether they agree to go or do not agree, they have to go, and if they do not go it would be absurd for any man to hope that peace could be maintained in that district.
  8
  If they refuse to go, here, at any rate, the land war will go on, and, indeed, I have no hesitation in saying that, under these circumstances, if there is refusal on their part peace in this district would be a dishonour to Ireland."
  That is taken from the report of Mr. Redmond's speech which appeared in the Freeman's Journal on 7th October last year.
  Naturally, after this, the planter tenants were bullied and put under pressure. They were coerced into giving consent to the Estates Commissioners to quit their holdings; they were strictly boycotted and were also promised by the Estates Commissioners substantial sums to go. Under pressure twenty-one signed consent to go, and this was the real cause of the proceedings in the Irish Courts. On 6th June of this year twenty-one tenants signed saying that they withdrew their consent to go. The paper runs thus—
  "We regret that some of us last year weakly signed papers put hastily before us and under pressure of a threatened impending boycot and with promises of large sums as purchase of our holdings. We declare we withdraw such agreements and refuse to break up our homes."
  I have every reason to believe that since then six or more of these twenty-one tenants have withdrawn from the declaration. That is the whole story of the Clanri-carde estate. I am not going to make comment upon it whatever. I leave the House to draw its own conclusions. I ask your Lordships whether I was not right when I said that this measure was an instance of political vituperation. If there is anything which shows what political vituperation in Ireland is, it is contained in the speeches of Mr. Redmond. The object of this Bill is to crush Lord Clanricardo and to hit those planter tenants whom Lord Robertson's Amendment last year was designed to protect. They are hit by this Bill through the owner of the property.
  I frankly say that I should much like to move the rejection of this Bill; but I know that the two front benches are against me, and before such strength and ability I must bow. But I would submit to your Lordships that, while nominally permissive, this Bill will subject every planter tenant to irresistible pressure to sell his interest; it will result in evicted tenants being restored as purchasers

  9
  to rented land at prices which would certainly be set up as the standard price which the owner ought to accept from his other tenants. My Lords, I think we have reached the "last phase," or nearly the last phase, of the agrarian agitation and its attendant troubles in Ireland. But when the historian sets down the tale of agrarian agitation and agrarian legislation in that country, when political rancour has been forgotton, has passed away, and is stilled, what must he say of this measure? A landlord, a member of your Lordships' House, sought to protect his planter tenants and his own interests. He appealed to the highest Court in his own country, and that Court granted his appeal. Thirteen days after a Bill was introduced to reverse that decision, and shortly afterwards the House of Lords passed the Second Reading of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as I have on more than one occasion interested myself particularly in the question which we are debating, and as the noble Earl who leads the House referred the other evening very pointedly to some observations that had fallen from me last year, I may, perhaps, be permitted, before the discussion goes further, to offer your Lordships a few observations upon the Government Bill. I should like, in the first place, to make this preliminary remark. Let us remember that we are not to-night discussing the Evicted Tenants Act which was passed last year. That Act is a part of the law of the land. We accepted it with great reluctance. We made no secret of our objection to the principles which it embodied, but we accepted it, to the best of my belief, for one reason, and for one reason only—because His Majesty's Government represented to us very earnestly indeed that, in their view, the measure formed an integral part of a policy of pacification which they desired to bring about in Ireland, and that, if we took upon ourselves to reject that particular item in their programme of pacification, that programme was destined to failure.
  It was upon those representations, and upon the strength of those representations only, that this House agreed to pass the Evicted Tenants Bill. But we made one important Amendment in it.
  10
  We determined that, whatever hardship might arise to the landlords, whatever violation of principle might be involved by the provisions of the measure, we would make, at least, an effort to protect that particular class of tenant whom we have always described as planter tenants, and not all of those tenants but only such of them as were firmly established in their new holdings, and were treating their land in accordance with the methods of good husbandry.
  The only question really before us tonight is, I conceive, this—Did we by the terms of our Amendment go beyond the necessities of the case and beyond the intentions of your Lordships' Houses? Your Lordships are aware of the interpretation which has been put by the Court of Appeal upon the proviso which we inserted in subsection 3, and, of course, I assume—I think, indeed, it is obvious—that the interpretation of the Court of Appeal is a correct interpretation. We now learn accordingly that the effect of our proviso was not merely to protect the tenant, but to protect the holding from the operation of the compulsory powers which the Act conferred. The result of that is this, that the Act cannot be set in motion against a particular holding unless the consent not only of the tenant but of the landlord also has been obtained. The question I have to ask your Lordships is this—Was that our intention when we adopted Lord Robertson's Amendment last year? The noble and learned Lord will, I daresay, presently tell us what his own view was.
  For myself I answer unhesitatingly that it was in my view our purpose not to protect the landlord, but to protect the tenant: and the words which the noble Earl who leads the House quoted the other evening are, I am bound to say, conclusive so far as I am concerned. I endeavoured to show that the number of planters to whom the proviso would apply was a comparatively small number, and I said this—
  "The caretakers, the nondescripts, the birds of passage, will not be protected under the terms of our Amendment. Then there are other of these planter tenants who, no doubt, will be perfectly willing to move elsewhere under the liberal inducements which are to be offered to them. Those men are willing to go and need not be considered."

  11
  I could not have expressed my own views in more precise language, and I do not think at the time I was challenged by any of those who were listening to me.
  Well, my Lords, are there any reasons why this House should now insist upon a view which, as I conceive, would be entirely different from the view which we entertained last year? I have heard it said that it is a grievous injustice to the landlords of these planter tenants that they should be liable to have a planter tenant removed, and a restored tenant put in his place, and put there under conditions which would render his position infinitely superior to that of the ordinary tenants who are his neighbours. That is perfectly true; but it is a grievance which arises under the Evicted Tenants Act. It is a grievance which arises, for example, in the very much stronger case where the evicted tenant is restored, not on land occupied by another tenant, but whore he is replaced upon a farm carved out of the un-tenanted land in the landlord's own occupation—land which belongs absolutely to the landlord, and in the case of which he holds not only the interest of the landlord but the interest of the tenant also. I say that if we have swallowed such a camel as that I do not see how we can strain at the gnat which is embodied in the Bill on the Table.
  Then with regard to the hardship which the Bill might occasion to the tenants. My noble friend who spoke just now with much earnestness upon the subject of the Bill pointed out that many of these tenants, although they might profess readiness to go elsewhere, would really not be completely free agents in the matter. He pointed out that bribery and intimidation would probably be used without scruple, and that men who were subject to such influences required that additional support which they might expect from the concurrence of the landlord. But, my Lords, although I am quite sure that my noble friend is right when he tells the House that these men will be subjected to great pressure of different kinds, I do not see how this House can take upon itself to go into the motives by which the tenant is inspired when he gives his consent to the process of removal. You may suspect—you may
  12
  more than suspect—that influences of this kind have been at work; but, after all, if the tenant wants to go, I do not see what you have to gain by trying to force him to stay. I am almost tempted to suggest that a tenant might, in a case of that kind, find a very simple way of defeating the proviso of last year. If pressure had been put upon him successfully and he really wanted to accept the bribe offered to him to go elsewhere, he might cease to cultivate his land in a proper and husbandlike manner, and thereupon at once his holding would cease to come within the scope of the proviso.
  The real question is, do the tenants in question, whatever their inner motives may be, want to give up their farms or not? As to that, I am in possession of a piece of evidence which I think it is my duty to lay before the House. I have received within the last few days a letter from the gentleman to whom my noble friend referred—the Rev. Mr. Corcoran, of Portumna, county Galway, from which I should like to read a few words to the House. He begins by saying—
  "I have no motive in the matter but the peace of the district, which is more or less disturbed for the last twenty years owing to the unfortunate evictions on the above estate, but now I hope there are signs of peace and that the Estates Commissioners will be enabled to carry out their arrangements. All the planters are willing to go; in a couple of cases it is only a matter of compensation"—
  He means it is only a question of the amount of compensation they will receive—
  "I appeal, then, to your Lordship as a priest and a lover of peace to do all in your power to end this crying grievance by restoring the evicted tenants without any hardship or injustice to landlord, tenant, or planter. The few letters attached show it is only a matter of compensation with the planters. And, as your Lordship knows, the matter would be settled long since if the landlord consented."
  He encloses with this letter a memorial addressed to myself, which runs as follows—
  "We, the undersigned new tenants on the Clanricarde Estate, county Galway, do most respectfully ask Lord Lansdowne to use his great influence in passing into law the amending clause to the Evicted Tenants Bill introduced by Lord Crewe into the House of Lords, and thus enable us to carry out our arrangements with the Estates Commissioners, viz., to take reasonable compensation or farms of land elsewhere as good as what we now hold. We wish to add that in making those arrangements we were entirely free."

  13
  Here follow sixteen signatures, and the petition concludes with the postcript—
  "The above represent practically all the planter tenants. A few others were to call and sign, but time presses."
  The document is dated June 12th, and it is, therefore, I conceive, the most recent document of the series, because I have no doubt my noble friend was right in saying that these unfortunate people have hesitated a good deal, and perhaps have, in some cases, changed their mind more than once. That seems to be really the case for the Government Bill, and it appears to me to be a case which we on this side of the House should not be well advised to withstand.
  I will only notice one other argument, and I think it was used also by my noble friend behind me. What he suggested to your Lordships was something of this kind—that there had been a kind of compact over this matter, and that because the Nationalist Party had disregarded the terms of that compact and had not allowed bygones to be bygones, but had threatened and intimidated these particular farmers, we were therefore free to reconsider our position and to deal with it in a spirit different from that in which we might have approached it last year. All that I can say in regard to that is that I should be very sorry if this House were to deal with a proposal of this kind in a spirit of retaliation. If it is true, and I am afraid it is true, that the other side have not fulfilled the undertaking they gave to the public that bygones should be bygones, I trust that, at any rate, the House of Lords will scrupulously fulfil the arrangement to which it was a party last year, and for these reasons I shall give my support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, there is no doubt, as the noble Marquess has said, that the Amendment which your Lordships inserted in the Evicted Tenants Bill last year, on the Motion of Lord Robertson, was intended solely for the protection of the planter who was a bona-fide farmer, and who wished to remain on the land, and that those who were prepared to accept the inducements offered, and leave, need not be considered, as it might be assumed they were going willingly. Later on in the year it
  14
  was remarked to me from several quarters that we had omitted to take into consideration the existing state of the country, and that the agitation which was then advancing, owing to the very feeble efforts made by His Majesty's Government to check it, was making such headway that it would be exceedingly doubtful whether anyone giving up his land was doing so of his own free will. Now, in many parts of Ireland, free will has entirely ceased to exist as regards anything connected with land. A man cannot buy or sell, let or hire, according to his own free will; he must follow the dictates of the party of agitation. Therefore it is idle to attach any importance to the stipulation in this Bill with regard to the written consent of the tenant. A written consent is worth absolutely nothing if it is given by a man with a pistol at his head; and this is not a mere figure of speech, it may represent an actual fact. That extreme pressure will be exorcised is, I think, clear from the words used by Mr. Redmond at Portumna, when he said that peace in that district would be a dishonour to Ireland. I dislike the Bill, just as I objected strongly to the Act of last year, for I regard it as not only unjust to the landlord, but opposed to all principles of public morality that a man who has joined an illegal and immoral conspiracy, and lost his farm in consequence, should not only be reinstated in it but placed in a more favourable position than he formerly occupied. For the purchase instalment which he will have to pay is less than his former rent. But the principle was accepted last year by your Lordships' House and there is no question, therefore, of opposing the Second Reading. I hope, however, that some Amendment will be introduced in Committee to make sure that the written consent of the tenant is not an idle form.
  LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, as I took some part in the debate last year, it may be right that I should say a few words. I have examined this Bill in a critical, and, perhaps I may say, a, sceptical spirit, and having done so, I am bound to say that I think it is not merely consistent with what was done last year, but it carries out what was done last year. Therefore I add my advice to my noble friends from Ireland, with whose

  15
  general politics I so thoroughly sympathise, that this Second Reading should be given.
  What we contended for last year was individual freedom, not the less because it was the freedom of brave men. Our cause was the liberty of the individual to choose to go or to stay. We desired to protect, and we did protect, those who desired to stay, We are asked to-night merely to give effect to the wish of those who desire to go, and it seems to me that we should be defeating our own principle if, merely from anticipating dangers in the district, we did not assent to what is a manifest and plain proposition of justice. We have been told that consent in this part of the country is not consent. I daresay that, to a certain extent, there is some truth in that. On the other hand, we are asked by the responsible Government to pass a Bill which speaks of the written consent of the person concerned. The alternative suggested is that we should supersede this individual and require the consent of a third party, who was not in our consideration at all during the debates last year. That I decline to do, and I decline to do so although I have my conjecture that there may be abuse of this provision.
  But I make this appeal to His Majesty's Government. We are about to pass a Bill which, in its provision with reference to a man's consent in writing, uses the language of civilised legislation; and we have a right to ask that the Government should provide civilised administration. Accordingly, I hope it will be borne in mind, from this moment onwards, that in passing this measure we take the Government as giving us a pledge that, as the Legislature speaks to them in the language of civilised legislation, they will reply in the language of civilised administration. One word more. I suppose it may be assumed that in one way or another many of those planters will go. I hope some of them will stay. But, even supposing many of them do go, I do not think this House has any reason to regret this chapter of legislation. These were brave men who stood to their guns in bad times. We have recognised that stoutness and valour of that kind is a thing to be kept in view by this branch of Legislature, at all events, when we are considering questions of this kind; and I
  16
  believe that our action to-night, in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, will merely confirm the conviction that the House of Lords may be relied upon to stand by the principle of individual freedom, whether for good or for evil.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, with one observation which fell from the noble Earl who initiated this discussion we shall all be in cordial agreement. I refer to his statement that political vituperation was not altogether unknown in Ireland. We have many of us been the subject of it in our time, and I do not know that we are to any great extent the worse. But when the noble Earl speaks of this Bill as an instance of political vituperation, I must say I never saw a Bill drawn in more calm and peaceable terms; and I think, in fact, that what he meant was something a little different. What he intended to convey, and no doubt it was true, was that this Bill was intended to deal with a particular state of things which has arisen in regard to a particular individual.
  I do not propose to follow the noble Earl into the history of the Clanricarde estate. The rent statistics of that estate are not really relevant to this particular purpose, nor is the whole management of that estate. What we really have to consider is how far this Bill carries out the intentions of your Lordships' House as expressed in the Act of last year. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down stated, in the fullest and most candid manner, that in their opinion the intention of the Amendment, inserted on the motion of Lord Robertson, with regard to the bona-fide tenant is carried out in the Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time. It is, I think, common ground that the intention of that Amendment was to do what we all wish to do—to protect the tenant who, for some purpose of his own, desired to remain, provided that he was a genuine and bona-fide farmer; but it was not intended to give the landlord or anybody else a veto upon his departure on terms, supposing he found those terms acceptable.
  More than that, it is not only a question of the landlord's consent, but the

  17
  judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ireland absolutely strikes these holdings out of the purview of the Act altogether; and it appears to me that it would be open to anybody, not merely to the land lord, to object to any bona fide farmer coming under this particular clause—a result absolutely foreign to the intention of your Lordships' House. Lord Mayo stated that very strong pressure has been placed upon these planter tenants to go, and he spoke of them as having been boycotted. I do not know what warrant the noble Earl has for that statement. I do not think it is accurate to state that those tenants have appeared in the boycotting returns, but, at any rate, as far as the evicted tenants are concerned, I am given to understand that they have behaved with the utmost patience and in a perfectly law-abiding manner, and have not attempted to interfere with those at present occupying the farms. I think I ought to state in regard to the action of the Government in this matter, that this particular result was to some extent foreseen last year by the Chief Secretary when the matter was being discussed in the House of Commons. He said that he saw great difficulty in accepting the clause as it went down from your Lordships' House very much on the grounds which the Court of Appeal have since taken. He, I think, foresaw, although probably not to the fullest extent, that this very question might be raised, and that it was possible that a Court of law would interpret the terms of the clause in the manner in which it ultimately did.
  I have now only to thank your Lordships for the manner in which you have received this Bill. Nothing, if I may venture to say so, could have been more absolutely candid than the speeches which have been made with regard to it, and I quite admit, as the noble Lord who has just sat down observed, that the fact that your Lordships are prepared to pass the Second Reading of this measure will be taken as showing that you are anxious to carry out that peaceful policy in which we consider the Evicted Tenants Act of last year to play a considerable part. The noble and learned Lord said he hoped that we, in our turn, would adopt methods of civilised administration. My Lords, it is the absolute desire of
  18
  my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to administer the law fairly. Everybody knows who has had anything to do with Ireland that there are certain forms of illegality there with which it is extremely difficult to deal by law. Everybody who has bad to do with the administration of Ireland knows that there are forms of boycotting which, I will not say it is impossible, but on the very verge of impossible, to check by the operations of any Act of Parliament; but I am quite certain that my right hon. friend desires to do everything he can to keep those parts of Ireland—not a very wide area—which are in a disturbed condition, as peaceful as he can by all possible methods, relying, as we have said, as long as he can, and if possible always, on the operations of the ordinary law.
  On question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I need not assure the House that I have not the least intention of raising any question with regard to the Act passed last year. It has only been in operation for about two months, and any question of amendment or increased power, or anything of that kind, could only be considered after much longer experience. All I will say with regard to that Act is, and I am sure my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will agree with me, that His Majesty's Judges are doing their utmost to make it a practical Act, and to work it in a way which will strengthen the criminal law. It is in order that we may get as far as possible perfect equipment for that Act that I have found it necessary to ask your Lordships to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading.
  This Bill deals with two practical points only. The Act of last year, for reasons which commended themselves to somebody—I really do not know

  19
  to whom—did not allow all the Judges of the King's Bench Division to be Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I do not know, and I do not wish to inquire, what the reasons for that restriction were. Since then a Committee has been sitting at the instance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and has resulted in the Judges of the King's Bench Division devising a circuit scheme which will enable ten Judges to be continuously in London. The matter is difficult to arrange, but I hope the scheme will work. It will come into operation on 12th October. In consequence, the difficulty of providing for the Court of Criminal Appeal will be accentuated. The new circuit scheme could not be worked if the number of Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal is limited to eight besides myself. I, therefore, find it absolutely necessary to ask your Lordships to increase the number of Judges of that Court. I see no reason for drawing any distinction in the matter, and, therefore, the first clause in this Bill provides that all the Judges of the King's Bench Division shall be Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Of course, the selection of the Judges who are to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal must rest with the Lord Chief Justice for the time being. The responsibility is, and must be, his. I think I have given sufficient justification for the first clause in the Bill.
  By the second section of the Act of last year the registrar is chosen from one of the Masters of the King's Bench Division. At the present time the work is being admirably done by the Master of the Crown Office, but there is no choice, if it became necessary to appoint a new registrar, outside the ranks of the Masters of the King's Bench Division. I have received a memorial from the Masters as to the impossibility of their doing this additional work. That, however, is not my real reason for dealing-with this matter, because, of course, they must do the work if it is put upon them. My real reason is that I think it is most important that the registrar should be a man skilled in criminal law. The Bill therefore proposes, in Clause 2, subsection (1), to give power to appoint, in the case of any future
  20
  appointment, a barrister versed in the criminal law.
  Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 involves no principle at all. It is that a deputy registrar should be appointed. At present no deputy registrar is authorised by the Statute. Work arising under the Act will have to be done in the long vacation, and it will be absolutely necessary that there should be someone in the office to discharge the duties of the registrar. The Lord Chancellor has already appointed the staff, and it includes a gentleman who has the qualification of a practising barrister of not less than seven years standing, and who is quite competent to discharge the duties. All I desire under this subsection is to give power for a member of the staff already appointed to be allowed to act as assistant registrar. My only aim and object in bringing the Bill forward is to make the body, both judicial and administrative, that has to deal with this Act as efficient as it can be made.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Alverstone.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I desire to deal quite shortly with the subject of the Second Reading of this Bill. The House will remember that the Criminal Appeal Act had its origin in this House in the year 1906. The following year it was passed by the House of Commons and became law, the proposals being somewhat varied in the second Bill from what they were in the first. In fact, I do not think the differences of opinion were altogether coterminous with party connections; but there were differences of opinion, and they ultimately resulted in compromise. I have no wish to offer any objection to the Bill submitted to vour Lordships to-day by the Lord Chief Justice, although, of course, when it roaches the House of Commons, it may, if it can be considered, encounter the same various currents of opinion as the Bill of last year and which resulted in the compromise now on the Statute-book.
  I would remind the House that the proposal that all the Judges of the King's Bench Division should be Judges of the

  21
  Court of Criminal Appeal was contained in my original Bill in 1906, but the House of Commons for reasons which we need not speculate upon, objected to all the Judges being members of this Court. If they change their view, I shall not in the least deprecate the change. With regard to future appointments to the office of registrar, I will only say that there is now a very competent registrar, who, I hope, will perform the work for many years to come. With regard to my noble and learned friend's third proposal, the Act says that the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury may provide such assistance as is required. I have provided all the assistance that has been necessary up to the present, and whatever further is required I am prepared, of course, to provide. I think, however, that it is very likely that the House of Commons will be of opinion that if any fresh appointments are made they ought to be made with the sanction of the Treasury and on the responsibility of a Minister answerable to Parliament.
  For my own part I should be most happy to be divested of any patronage attaching to my office. I find it by no means the most agreeable portion of my duties. But experience has shown it to be right that those in whom the appointment resides ought to be persons in a Ministerial position responsible to Parliament. Accordingly I suspect that objections will be raised to my noble and learned friend's proposal. At the same time, I desire to recognise the anxiety of my noble and learned friend to make the Act work well, and I should regard myself as most ungrateful if I endeavoured to put any obstacle in the way of any proposals my noble and learned friend made.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, although there is likely to be no opposition to this Bill I would like to say a few words with regard to the position of the Court of Criminal Appeal. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has said that the time has scarcely come for judging of the working of the Act, as only a few months have elapsed since it came into operation. I think, on the other hand, that sufficient time has elapsed to allow of our taking stock of the working of this Act.
  22
  When, some forty years ago, I made proposals in the hope of obtaining a Court of Criminal Appeal it was prophesied that it would be impossible to create and maintain such a Court in this country, that there would be a glut of appeals, that many Judges would have to be appointed to administer it, that it would frustrate rather than support the acquittal of innocent people, and that nothing but evil would result. Such prophecies were uttered in both Houses of Parliament; they were even uttered by Judges on the Bench. I now claim, as one who has always had the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal at heart, that the experience we have had of its working has proved all those prophecies to be unsound. In the first place, the Act was drawn with singular wisdom and moderation in respect of all matters to which it referred.
  I think the country is much indebted to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the part he has taken in devising and passing so complete an Act. My noble and learned friend has in this instance given proof of the great advantage in the administration of the law which is being derived from his occupying his present high position, and how important it is to the public that he should continue to occupy that position. I give that praise because I think it is especially due. The Act has, with the able assistance of the Lord Chief Justice, been wisely administered, and the Judges have set themselves anxiously to the work cast upon them. They have discouraged appeals which ought not to have been made; they have shown that an appellant may have something to lose as well as something to gain, and the consequence has been that there has not arisen any approach to a stoppage in the administration of justice in consequence of these appeals. There has been, on the other hand, a certain knowledge conveyed to the public that justice will be truly administered in this country, and that for the future there is no fear of an innocent man receiving punishment.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE FUND.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the notice standing in my name on the Paper, to ask His Majesty's Government for the following information respecting claims upon and payments out of the Irish Land Purchase Fund as at 31st May, 1908: (1) What was the total amount of the applications for advances and other claims upon the fund. (2) How much had been paid out of the Fund: (a) Into the hank to await clearing of title, etc.; (b) Into the Land Judge's Court; (c) To the Congested Districts Board. (3) How much had been allocated and distributed to the parties entitled to receive same. I desire to further ask His Majesty's Government: (4) What was the amount of guaranteed 2¾ per cent. stock issued under the Irish Land Act, 1903, down to 31st May, 1908. (5) What was the amount of the cash obtained for same. (6) What was the amount of such stock and cash respectively allotted to the Land Purchase Aid ("Bonus") Fund. (7) What was the amount standing to credit of the Irish Land Purchase Fund at 31st May, 1908, and available towards meeting outstanding and future applications for advances and other claims upon the fund. (8) Does the figure of £175,450, in paragraph 45 of the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Treasury [Cd. 4005.]. include the estimated cost of administering the Irish "Fair Rent" Acts in 1907–1908; if not, how much should be added to the estimate to include the cost of administering those Acts.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I can give the noble Earl most, if not all, of the information he desires up to 31st May, 1908. The answers to his Questions are—(1) The amount of applications for advances and the estimated amounts required for the purchase of estates and land were altogether £62,742,660. (2) (a) The total amount, in respect of advances made by the Estates Commissioners, paid out of the fund into bank to await distribution by a Judicial Commissioner (clearing of title) was £20,404,257; (b) the amount paid under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 into the Land Judge's Court was £972,422;
  24
  (c) for purchases by the Congested Districts Board under Sections 72 and 79, the sum of £1,109,819 was advanced; (2) for estates purchased by the Congested Districts Board from the Land Judge, the sum of £94,489 was advanced. (3) The sum of £19,088,158 has been distributed by a Judicial Commissioner; and, in addition, sums amounting to £2,496,500 have been advanced, some of which is distributable by the Land Judge, some by a Land Commissioner other than the Judicial Commissioner, and some does not require an order for distribution. (4) The amount of guaranteed 2¾ per cent. stock issued to 31st May was £28,201,444. (5) This amount produced in cash £24,862,297. (6) The amount of stock allotted to the Land Purchase Aid Fund was £2,651,440, equivalent to £2,332,760 cash. (7) Since 18th May, the cash required for advances has been supplied by temporary borrowings from the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt from time to time as the money is needed. On 31st May the amount thus borrowed for the Land Purchase Fund amounted to £240,000. (8) The figure £175,450, quoted from Paragraph 45 of the Committee's Report, is the total estimated cost of the Land Commission for the year 1907–1908 (less the charge for bonus and the extra receipts), and therefore includes the estimated cost of administering the Fair Rent Acts. I hope that gives the noble Earl most of the information he requires.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I wish to thank him and the Irish Office for the trouble they have taken in getting out the figures so expeditiously.

  LOCAL TAXATION.
  Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the Motion of the Earl of Onslow for Papers respecting the additional duties imposed by Parliament during recent years upon local authorities, and to the increased burdens thereby thrown upon urban and rural rates and upon the members and officials of county and other councils.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Viscount WOLVER-HAMPTON): My Lords, I think that everyone who has taken any interest in our local taxation must feel indebted to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman for having brought this matter before your Lordship's House and in that way before the public. The present state of the relations between Imperial and local taxation I think may be described as chaotic. From time to time emergencies have arisen in the administration of local affairs, and, no system having been laid down or pursued in regard to local rating, local expenditure methods have grown up which are illogical and extravagant.
  Twelve years ago the Government of the day came to the conclusion that the time had arrived for a complete investigation of the whole question of local expenditure and its relation to Imperial contributions to be undertaken by a Royal Commission. That Commission was selected with judgment and wisdom. I do not think it would have been possible for a Commission to have been constituted, at all events in the then condition of public business, more competent to investigate thoroughly the whole question of local taxation and the best method of dealing with it. As your Lordships have been reminded, the Commission was placed under the able and competent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh; and that Commission, having sat for five years and made an exhaustive survey of the whole field of local administration and taxation, presented in 1901 a Report—in its main points a unanimous Report—distinguished by the fairness and justice with which it dealt with a question full of difficulties and complications.
  Now in 1908 the question has been again raised. The noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, referred to the difficulties which necessarily surrounded the late Government in regard to finance, and said they did not feel justified in dealing with the matter in the interval which ensued between the presentation of the Report and the time when they left office. I cannot pass from that Report without remarking that, in my opinion, the Report of this Commission will remain a permanent evidence of the
  26
  extraordinary ability of the permanent civil servants of the Crown. The Report prepared by Sir George Murray and Sir Edward Hamilton is one of the most statesmanlike and judicial documents of the kind I have ever read; and no doubt whenever Government comes to deal with the subject they will attach great value to their recommendations as well as to those of other Members of that Commission. The Report of the Commission, I am sorry to say, has almost passed away from public attention. As is the case with too many Royal Commissions, the hard work of these gentlemen is interred in a huge volume of evidence of which the value is soon forgotten.
  The Lord Chairman did good service by calling attention to the subject once more. Local rates have increased, and are increasing. It is impossible for anyone to say that there is any sign of reduction in local expenditure. Viscount St. Aldwyn has suggested that the system of old-age pensions which His Majesty's Government propose to establish will tend to relieve the poor rate. I wish I could express my concurrence in that view. No doubt some alleviation will result, but it is doubtful whether that will not be counterbalanced by the additional expenditure which I see no chance of preventing. There are certain phrases at the present time about social reform, but it is inevitable that the expenditure to be met of a local character must increase with the growth of the nation; and the point to which your Lordships' attention has been called is whether the means of raising the funds which are necessary to meet that expenditure are proper and fair to all parties—whether the proper proportion is preserved between national and local services, and whether it is just that the burden of many services which are purely national should fall to the extent that it does upon the local authority. And it must be borne in mind that many of these burdens are not the result of any action on the part of the local authority, but are the outcome of the enactments of Parliament.
  There is another question, to which I attach even greater importance—the serious addition made in the local debt, the total of which at the present time is,

  27
  in round figures, £470,000,000. It is not very much behind the National Debt. It must not be forgotten that a large proportion of that debt is what the late Lord Goschen called a remunerative investment; and, although all councils have made mistakes—I believe that all Parliaments have made mistakes from time to time—on the whole the expenditure, vast as it has been, is to a considerable extent remunerative. My noble friend Lord Onslow seemed to think that the Local Government Board did not defend the interests of the ratepayers. I most respectfully differ from him in that opinion. The late Mr. Gladstone laid it down again and again that one of the main duties of that Department was to protect the ratepayers of the future. Parliament is too ready to authorise and facilitate future expenditure for which it has not got to find the necessary money. I suggest that Parliament should discourage as far as possible the practice which local authorities are inclined to adopt of asking for legislation when they ought to obtain the powers which they desire by provisional orders. By the latter method great expense would be saved, and the necessary control by the Local Government Board would be secured.
  I do not propose to submit any suggestion as to the mode in which this question should be dealt with now. I quite agree with the noble Earl the Lord Chairman as to the desirability of the Report which Lord Goschen made in 1871, and which I took up and carried on in 1893, being brought more up-to-date. There has been a great change in local administration, there has been a fuller development of local government, and there has been a more complete testing of the working of the late Lord Ritchie's great Act of 1888; and I think we could now have the facts set out in a more condensed and readable form than was the case in the Reports prepared by Lord Goschen and myself.
  I desire to make one remark with reference to the injustice of the present system of local taxation. In your Lordships' House, and by a large section of the other House, the question is often looked at too exclusively perhaps from
  28
  the agricultural point of view. I quite admit that there is a strong case in regard to the taxation of land, at all events in the case of the farmer, who often has to pay heavy rates on the rent, which is really part of the capital with which he carries on his business. But the same grievance exists in urban taxation. The shopkeeper, the man who is engaged in any large mercantile or manufacturing pursuit, is obliged to pay a large rent in order to carry on his business, and he is rated on that. But the merchant, who is perhaps making much greater profits than either the farmer or the tradesman, is exempt from local taxation altogether, except, perhaps, in respect of the bare rent of the office or warehouse in which he carries on his business. The grievance, which is confined to no one class, but extends through the whole of our local taxation system, is that the producer, the manufacturer, is really taxed on a large portion of his capital as if that capital were all income.
  There is a very strong case, too, of extravagance on the part of local authorities where they do not find the money themselves. I am satisfied that there is a danger, if any change is made in the direction of granting more public money to local authorities, of extravagance, though that might possibly be guarded against by the strict supervision of the central authority. It is impossible to make any reform in local taxation unless we have a new and uniform system of valuation. The difference between what is called the gross rental and the assessable value as it stands at present is very considerable. I think the gross rental is about 250 millions, while the assessable is about 46 millions less. The system is indefensible because we have no system at all. I hold that there should be but one assessable value for all taxation—that the valuation, for the income-tax and every other tax which is based on property should be uniform, and as near as possible to the actual figures of the case. The Government have declared their intention of dealing with the question next year, and it is time that a Government did deal with what has been a pressing demand for many years.

  29
  The keystone of the whole position is a reform of the Poor Law. The present Poor Law system is utterly out of date, and until it has been dealt with and placed upon proper and wise principles we cannot rely upon any satisfactory dealing with the question of local administration and local taxation. The Prime Minister has pledged himself to that, and he has promised that one of the first questions that will be taken in hand will be the relations between local and Imperial taxation. I recognise that it is the duty of Parliament, so far as local taxation is concerned, to remove the present crying grievance, of which all parties and all classes justly complain.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I do not think it is desirable that this debate should close without some expression of opinion on behalf of the county councils, who are deeply interested in the question of the great increase that, has been placed upon the rates by the large number of measures which have been entrusted to them to administer. Let me say at once that I lay much greater stress on what I may call the second part of Lord Onslow's resolution. I am not sure that the view which has been expressed by some speakers that county councils are so much overworked that they cannot properly undertake the duties, and will be likely to leave it to officials, is quite borne out by what I believe to be the facts; but I look with some alarm on any Act which suggests that county councils should administer duties which are outside the scope of their present work. I think the Act now before Parliament which suggests that it is the duty of county councils to collect a part of the taxes, even if that money should go to the county councils themselves, will be looked upon with very great dislike by the county councils. They have no officers to do the work, they are in no way conversant with it, and from what I am led to suppose is likely to be the sum set aside for the purpose of collecting these taxes, it seems to me wholly inadequate to recompense a body like the county council for the work they will have to do.
  As to the large increase in the rates, let me say that there is no body of men
  30
  more aware of the present state of the case than the county councils themselves. I have the honour of presiding over the executive council of the County Councils Association, and there is not a meeting when resolutions are not received from county councils dealing with the financial aspect of these new measures, and asking us to put before the Government the fact that the burdens are becoming excessive and that the ratepayers are very insistent in their demand for relief. We ourselves passed a resolution as recently as last month on the lines of the settlement suggested by the Local Taxation Commission—that national services should be paid for mainly out of national funds. That, I think, well expresses what the feeling of county councils is, with regard to the numerous matters which they have at present to administer. We have already had three deputations to Ministers of this very point during the past two or three months, and though much sympathy has been expressed at the position of the county councils, no relief has, at present, been offered.
  Although most of the speakers have referred to the increase in the rates during the last seven or eight years, the chief grievance we feel is at the large increase which was necessitated last year, and which is likely to again be rendered necessary this year, in consequence of fresh legislation. However interesting an historical account of what has taken place during the last few years may be, in a matter that touches the pocket of the ratepayers the history of to-day is very much more important; and although we have had no relief in the past, the ratepayers at all events hope that there may be some little relief in store for them at the present. Lord Fitzmaurice, who spoke with a great knowledge of local government, put his finger at once on the two main causes of complaint which the county councils have to bring before the Government—namely, the increased cost of the main roads, and of the administration of education. But here, again, no remedy was suggested by the noble Lord, except that those who complained should wait for another couple of years. But at least seven years ago it was reported by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation that the question was in an acute

  31
  stage. They stated that, owing to the large increase of traffic on the roads and their cost, the main roads should be paid for out of national funds. That was in 1901. Surely to-day the case is overwhelming in favour of additional aid being given to the county councils for the upkeep of the roads.
  The same view holds good of the increased cost of education. The rate that has to be raised for education constitutes a very heavy charge on the ratepayers. It is considerably more than double the whole of the county rate for other purposes; and it falls with excessive hardship through the fact that many of those who now have to pay the heavy education rate had their schools kept up without the payment of any rate on their part. I should like to bring the history of this question a little more up to date, and to refer particularly to the expensive administration of medical inspection. The House will remember that when that Bill was passed last year I made as strong a protest as I could, on behalf of county councils, against this charge being placed on the county authorities. We felt that it was not only likely to be a serious charge, but a charge which would be much larger in counties than in boroughs owing to the fact that the schools are more scattered. I regret to have to remember that I received very little support from either side of the House, except from among some of my noble friends who sit near me.
  But I did receive support which I thought at the time was especially valuable. Lord Goschen, in one of the last speeches which he made in your Lordships' House, said that, averse as he was to the suggestion that any further subvention—of which he did not approve in principle—should be given to local authorities, yet he thought this was a case where a subvention ought to be given to county councils, medical inspection being really a national charge which ought to be met to a considerable extent out of national funds. What is the result? We find now, after the regulations have been issued by the Local Government Board, that medical inspection is likely to be much more expensive than we thought at the time.
  32
  We had a very important deputation to Mr. McKenna, who was then President of the Board of Education, upon this matter early in the present session, and Mr. McKenna on that occasion entirely sympathised with the view put before him by the County Councils Association—that education was becoming unpopular because of the large amount that had to be raised for it on the rates. He agreed that that was a great misfortune. He went on to say that, although he could not set aside any sum this year for medical inspection, he intended making an alteration in the mode of paying the grants for education, and that would be a great benefit to the ratepayers as it would not only cover the provisions of the Education Act, but also give a substantial sum for the purpose of meeting medical inspection. I ventured to suggest that we should much prefer it if he could deal with the question at once, rather than leave it to the chance of what would be left over under the proposed Bill. His answer was that he regretted he could not there and then promise a grant to cover the immediate cost of medical inspection, but he assured the deputation that the proposals in the Bill would do far more than meet the cost of the additional requirements, and that it would be possible for them to meet their ratepayers with a substantial reduction in the rates. That was practically the only grain of comfort given us by the Government. I think Mr. Buxton said the same thing, that if this House passed the Education Bill the ratepayers would be very substantially benefited.
  What is the actual case? While largely increased grants are being given, there is a provision attached to the Education Bill—the same provision which, I think, was excised from the Bill of two years ago—which proposes to do away with the three-fourths now paid by the minor Authority in the case where a school has been built either by the school board or since, and to put the whole of that on to the general rate. As your Lordships know, in a great part of the counties the schools have been wholly built by the people in the parishes themselves. Those schools have been paid for, and the obligations in respect of them concluded.

  33
  The proposal now is that where the school board has had to raise a loan and has not been able to meet its obligations the locality shall be relieved of three-fourths of the rate and this shall be put as a burden on the rest of the county.
  What is the effect of that proposal? I have the figures for thirty-seven counties and I find, calculating the expense of the provisions of the Bill if it passes in the form in which it has been brought in and also of this transference, that the effect would be that in every one of those counties except three the rates would be very largely increased. So far from its beng a benefit to the counties and therefore an inducement to us to pass the Bill, as the matter stands it is exactly the reverse. I quite admit that the particular parishes which have these large rates will be considerably relieved, but the fact is that the general rate of the county comprising the larger area will be largely increased by the effect of these proposals. In my own county the rates will be raised more than 2½d. in the £ and that will be the effect, as far as we can see, of provisions which we are told will be of real benefit to the ratepayers.
  It has been said by Lord Fitzmaurice that if there was any feeling on the part of the county councils it was rather a feeling against centralisation. He went on to say that he was fully agreed, as we all are, that local authorities should be subject to the general direction of the central authority; and he added that the check could not be too severe, and that in this way the authorities were prevented from scattering their money lavishly about. I hope that my noble friend, with his large knowledge of county council work, did not include county councils among those bodies who scatter their money lavishly. I can only say from my own experience that I cannot recall a single instance where the Local Government Board has done anything to prevent expenditure on the part of county councils; but, on the other hand, there are cases where this centralising influence has had the effect of increasing very largely the expense of county councils.
  Let me cite two examples. It has been the custom in Acts of late years,
  34
  partly for the purpose of passing them more easily through Parliament, and partly, I think, because it is absolutely necessary in some cases, to give power to the Government Department concerned to draw up regulations under which the Act is to be administered. This is no doubt very useful, and as long as the funds are to be raised out of the Exchequer there is complete check, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not find the money unless he is satisfied that the regulations are of a proper character and do not involve unnecessary expense. But where the funds are provided by the county this is not so. Take the case of weights and measures. Only a year ago there was a new issue of regulations by the Local Government Board, made, I admit, in the interests of efficiency, but putting, an unreasonable burden on the counties. We have no voice in the matter, and the regulations are imposed without county councils having any power of making representations. In my own county an expenditure of £250 was caused by these regulations, and I am told that the expense will be much larger next year. I am certain that if these regulations had been drawn up by someone on the spot who knew the circumstances of the county, an unnecessary charge could have been saved without interfering; with efficiency. Then there is the case of the new regulations issued by the Board of Agriculture in regard to swine fever. They were so large that the clerk to the county council assured me that in order to get them posted in the way suggested he had to pay a bill of nearly £50. I am told that they will cost a small county from £150 to £200 this year, and the probability is that before many of them are read they will be again altered by the Board of Agriculture. It is not as if the central authority were going to pay the bill themselves. In these matters the bill has to be paid by the county council, and if their discretion is taken away and measures are imposed upon them which make a considerable charge upon the funds of the county, you cannot be surprised if the county councils smart under a feeling of injustice. They feel very strongly that in cases of this, sort some relief should be given to them. I can assure the House that the county

  35
  councils are ready to discharge all their duties and to do their work as efficiently as they can, but they feel that there should be some hope that they will not have further burdens imposed upon them.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I shall not trouble your Lordships either as to present administration or as to Bills that may hereafter come before us, but I wish to say a word or two on the general question of the rates and their burden and the way in which the matter has been treated. First of all, let me say that I think people use too often the phrase that matters of a national character should be paid by the nation and local charges should be borne by the locality. There is hardly a charge which is defrayed locally which cannot, from a certain aspect, be considered of a national character. If we are to have any formula on the question of national and local charges, it should be that the burden should follow the administration. I think we all feel that subsidies are very dangerous, and that those who have the determination of the expenditure should bear the main burden of raising it.
  Much of this debate has been of a very interesting and instructive character. I should like to associate myself with one or two points made on the other side as to remedies that may be introduced. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn, on the importance of making those who have the power of administering these charges conscious of their responsibility and of their burden. Considerable evil has arisen out of the wholesale compounding for rates, which does tend to conceal from persons what they are actually paying. If the ordinary working man in London who occupies a couple of rooms at 6s. or 7s. a week realised that he was paying £6 or £7 a year towards the local government of London, he would probably take greater interest in his local government. I associate myself entirely with the speech of the noble Lord the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I wish to emphasise his statement that a proper valuation is one of the measures which lie at the root of reform in local administration. However much
  36
  the area may be extended there will still be danger of abuse and unfair valuation in localities. It is a ridiculous thing that you should have boards of guardians and various rural authorities making assessments. Even so large an area as a county borough may have an unfair assessment, and an unfair assessment is always a deliberate underassessment. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Balfour, quoted yesterday, as a sharp contrast, Oldham and Bournemouth. It is not the business of any legislation to try to remedy inequalities of fortune between persons and localities. A rich place like Bournemouth must have larger means, and, therefore, can indulge in larger local expenditure than a poor industrial town. Oldham, I happen to know, is a town which deliberately has an excessive under-valuation of its property. Unless you apply the income-tax assessment and take a reasonable percentage off that, you have a temptation in many places to falsify the valuation. Under the Education Act a district becomes a poor district and obtains a subvention from the State if it shows a valuation below a certain figure per capita. It is, therefore, in the interest of the taxpayer who gives subventions, as well as, in a large area like a county, in the interest of the county as against the various districts, to have an honest and fair assessment.
  But I do not think the question of assessment is the only one which lies at the root of reform in this matter. I do not think you can dissociate the question of local taxation from that of local self-government, and the question of local self-government is very largely a question of suitable areas. While I agree that in legislation the two things may be taken separately, I do not think we can afford to neglect the recollection that both are important. I wish to associate myself with what Lord Balfour said as to the great importance of a good Valuation Bill, which, anyhow, must be a complicated and difficult thing. It would tread upon a good many people's toes and offend a good many interests, and it would be well if we could dissociate that piece of practical legislation from more controversial questions such as separating capital from annual value. A good Valuation Bill

  37
  would require ample time for debate, and there is quite enough in a Valuation Bill without complicating it by the introduction of other matters.
  I wish, in passing, to touch upon the suggestion made by Lord Onslow, which has not been noticed by any speaker since, that the only remedy for the evils of local taxation was to fall back on tariff reform. If we were to adopt taxation upon agricultural products on the line suggested by Mr. Chamberlain we should raise something like £11,000,000 a year in taxation upon those articles consumed by the people, and in addition, by raising prices, we should endow the agricultural interest with about £10,000,000 more. That is to say, we should put a burden on consumers of about £21,000,000 a year. The debate has turned largely on the grievances of the rural rather than of the urban ratepayer. The noble Earl the Lord Chairman used the word "we"—not as meaning your Lordships' House as a legislative assembly, but landowners And persons interested in agricultural land. The question of rating is a far wider one than that of the agricultural community. The burden of rates levied upon the occupiers of agricultural land of the United Kingdom is not more than £4,000,000 a year. The relation that bears to the cost of production of the food and other crops of the country put upon the market is about 2 per cent. People talk as if the burden of the rates was one of the most tremendous burdens on agriculture. It really is one of the least.
  In talking of the burden of rates one of the great questions is on whom the incidence falls. Apart from temporary fluctuations, the permanent rate is just as much, in agricultural communities, a landlord's charge as is the tithe. The first charges on the land are the tithe, the rates, and the landlord's rent; and any increase either of the tithe or the rates must come out of the rent. You cannot get more than an aggregate of those three together, and the question of agricultural rates is more a landlord's question than a tenant's question. Every noble Lord knows that if he has a farm which is tithe free he lets it for a higher rent than a farm which has to pay tithe. It is the same with the rates. We shall never discuss this question properly by mixing the rates up and talking generally
  38
  about the rate as a whole. They are as different in their economic operation as it is possible for them to be.
  The noble Viscount on the front bench spoke of the rates on manufacturers and shopkeepers as being a great burden. I contend that the rate on any place used for business is part of the cost of production, and must fall on the purchaser. A shopkeeper taking a shop in Bond Street pays an enormously enhanced rent, and consequently much higher rates, because he finds that from his position he can do more trade, and purchasers pay longer prices than they would do elsewhere. As I say, we cannot discuss this question properly by talking generally about the rates as a whole. We must bear in mind what the particular rate is, what its incidence is, whether it hampers industry, and whether it presses on the life of the people. If I were asked to say what rate in my opinion was the most oppressive as keeping down the standard of civilisation and health among the people, I should say it was the urban rate upon the inhabited houses of the poor.
  One word more. Lord Balfour drew a contrast between urban rates and rural rates on the ground that urban rates were expended beneficially for some direct profit to ther atepayers, but that rural rates were not. I think nearly all rates are expended for the benefit of those who pay them. The noble Lord spoke as if the agricultural ratepayer got no benefit from the main roads. Everyone derives benefit from good roads. Do you suppose that people would get their commodities brought to them so cheaply if the country grocer and tradesmen had not good roads? It is absurd to imagine that you do not derive benefit unless you personally use the roads. I feel that this question is one which deserves fuller discussion than it has had, but I wish to press that it is no use merely to grumble of the incidence on a particular class of property, for a large part of the rates we pay are passed on to quite different people; and, so far as rates are not a charge on property, to a very large extent, except so far as they fall on inhabited houses, they are a charge which every producer and manufacturer passes on to the general consumer. But that is, of course, no reason why the general system should not be revised.
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a, few minutes, and I should like to confine my remarks to discussing any possible remedies that may be thought of for putting an end to this very serious state of affairs. It seems to me that one of the principal reasons why financial burdens are so often shifted from national to local shoulders, so to speak, is that the local authorities present the line of least resistance, and this line of least resistance is produced by the system of compounding.
  I should like to associate myself with every word which fell from the noble Lord who has just sat down, on the subject of compounding and the evils which it brings about. Under that system the increasing burdens put on the ratepayers do not come home to the majority of the electors. It is futile to argue, that they pay them indirectly. It is quite a different thing from a system whereby the rates are demanded from each person as a separate payment. The system of compounding for rates was started originally for two main purposes. I am afraid that one was possibly for party reasons at the moment. It was also started as a convenience to avoid loss in collection, but in many cases there is absolutely no direct economy in that system.
  I will take, for instance, a few figures concerning the borough of Poplar. In 1906–7 the allowance in Poplar to owners of property in respect of their collection of rates, because part of the compounding system is to make large abatements to owners for the burden they take upon themselves of collecting rates from small people, amounted to £37,000, which I am informed represents a rate of something like 1s. in the £ Take, on the other hand, an instance to the contrary, because it is not every authority which has adopted the compounding system. In the borough of Lewisham, which does not compound for its rates, there was a loss in the collection of rates directly amounting to £6,000 in the year 1905; but that compares with £14,400 which would have had to have been allowed to owners if the compounding system had been in force, so that you have a gain of
  40
  over £8,000 to the borough, equal to a 2d. rate. Therefore in my view the compounding of rates is the fons et origo mali to a large extent, and a great deal of the present evil would naturally right itself if it were done away with, because it would be to the interest of thousands of people not now directly interested to put an end to municipal extravagance.
  There is another remedy—that of fixing a lower limit of rateable properties to come under the compounding system. There is an idea that if the limit were reduced to £12 it would go far to diminish the evil. A third remedy is the sending round to people when they pay their rent a card showing how much is rent and how much is due to rates; but I am afraid that not one man in a hundred would take the trouble to read it or to dissociate one thing from another. I feel that, if things go on as at present, we shall soon approach a system under which our taxation will gradually fall practically into the hands of designing persons, who will use their opportunities for plundering the people for their own benefit. That has ruined many other countries and, if things remain unchecked, may lead to the ruin of this country.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, although the noble Lord opposite complained a few moments ago of the somewhat confined nature of this debate, I am sure that on a subject which is not usually considered exciting your Lordships will feel that we owe 10 the noble Earl a most interesting discussion. I would not have ventured to intrude at all but that nobody who has hitherto spoken has taken the point which I myself feel, that the London County Council is perhaps the most important of all the instances of difficulty which have arisen in the discussion so far as it has proceeded.
  The London County Council is the worst instance of over-work of any local body in this Kingdom. It has also been the heaviest loser by the insufficiency of the assigned revenues. Again, it is also the greatest sufferer from the innumerable Acts affecting it passed since 1888. I do not for a moment suggest that one party or the other in the State is to

  41
  blame in this matter, but I think the general spirit of our legislation has been faulty in the extreme in the want of check on the continual imposition of fresh duties on local authorities which they can hardly perform. In old days it was held to be the duty of the State to interfere as little as possible in the private life of the people. Now, certainly in London every child is pursued by the attentions of the London County Council from the cradle to the grave. The County Council comes upon the scene the moment the midwife is called in, in the notification of the birth. As soon as infant life begins the London County Council is responsible for seeing, if the child is not well looked after by its parents, that it is removed from their care. Prevention of cruelty involves all sorts of inspectors. Then there is everything connected with education, including meals, special schools for the deaf and dumb, and for the physically deformed, quite apart from technical education, which is making rapid headway. The London County Council has the supervision of the milk, the water, and the food supply generally, and when the child is growing up baths and wash-houses are provided for the cleanliness of the person; if verminous, there is a special treatment, and if an inebriate a special infirmary. When in search of labour there are labour bureaux; if serving in a shop, shop hours and shop seats; if serving in a factory, special and new provisions. For amusements, there are the parks, and even the provision of boats and gymnasia. Then there are tramways and other means of locomotion, and, in case æesthetic feeling may be hurt by sky-signs, they have all been placed under special inspectors of the County Council.
  Year by year additions are made to the already inordinate mass of these duties, and if I call attention to them it is only because I feel that an effort should be made by both parties in the State to put a check on the tendency to slip powers through Parliament which, without making any charge on the Imperial Exchequer, do so often throw heavy charges on the local rates. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, never said a truer thing than when he stated that the rate
  42
  payer has no friends. Even a charge of a ten pound note on the Treasury is carefully scrutinised, but matters which are going to cost local authorities thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds are passed through Parliament with the merest modicum of consideration. Great stress has been laid on the benefit of valuation, and if a Valuation Bill could be removed from the more controversial subject, much good might be done.
  Then the noble Viscount opposite laid great stress on the Report of the Poor Law Commission. He spoke of it as almost recasting local government. But I would ask, if that is the view of His Majesty's Government, why have they been so previous in going into the matter of old-age pensions without waiting for the Report of the Poor Law Commission? If local government hangs so largely on that Report, why, in a most essential particular, have the decisions of that Commission been reviewed beforehand by the Government? I ask for some assurance from the Government of a more complete character. The noble Viscount who served at the Local Government Board told the House that while he was there he used his utmost endeavours to keep a hold on the local authorities. Lord St. Aldwyn told us yesterday how very dangerous is the position the present President of the Local Government Board has taken up. I cannot imagine anything more unconstitutional in regard to expenditure than the attempt which has been made in Government Bills of the last two years to place on local authorities great charges, in the decision of which they are to have no voice. To order a local authority, as may be done under the Town Planning Bill, to put up, at their own expense, a large number of buildings which they do not consider necessary seems to me a great innovation and one of a most dangerous and retrograde character.
  I am sorry to say it in this House, but I think we in the London County Council have a very grave complaint to make against the President of the Local Government Board. Before this Bill was introduced we addressed a formal request to him urging him to receive a deputation

  43
  concerning the contemplated proposals, and after having waited more than two months for an answer, received a curt negative. Considering that many millions have been spent under existing Acts by the London County Council, that was, at all events, a scarcely courteous way for a Minister at the head of a great Department to treat representatives of that Council. I cannot help feeling that nothing can be done towards re-casting local expenditure unless the Local Government Board will act much more efficiently as a watchdog and a check upon local bodies. You have the Treasury in the case of the taxpayer, but in the case of the ratepayer the Local Government Board appear for the moment to have gone over to the enemy. They are not merely not acting as a check, but are acting as an incentive to local expenditure.
  As far as our experience in London goes, I know of nothing which tends less to good administration than the doles given by the Exchequer to meet part of, the cost of certain services; and I cannot help feeling that any recasting of local government must go upon the lines of the Exchequer taking back certain services, as was suggested by Lord St. Aldwyn last night, and being wholly responsible for them. At present the London County Council is responsible for the disbursement of an enormous sum upon national services, and this addition to their work, carried on by nearly thirty committees, makes the amount of labour such as to give rise to serious apprehension that men I will not be found willing to give up four or five afternoons each week to discharge the duties.
  I think this discussion has brought out very clearly some points of difference, but it has elicited many points of agreement also. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Earl the Leader of the House something more than allusions to methods of valuation and ad vice to wait for the Report of the Poor Law Commission. It is the duty of the Local Government Board to act as a check upon the many rash and sometimes faddy proposals which are so quickly passed through Parliament and have added enormously to local burdens, and which, if they are
  44
  unfortunately indefinitely continued, must lead to a recodification of the law of local government, and, I hope, the-striking out of a very considerable number of services which never ought to have been instituted and which are at present a serious embarrassment to the efficiency of local government.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think by common agreement this has been a very interesting debate, and, if it is inconclusive, it only shares that quality with some of the most valuable and important discussions that have taken place from time to time in your Lordships' House. These debates which rove-over a considerable area, are very often, I think, among the most genuinely fruitful, that take place in the House of Lords.
  The noble Viscount who has just sat down spoke of the extra duties and burdens placed upon local authorities. This was also, to a great extent, the text of the very interesting speech which we had from Lord St. Aldwyn, in which he made certain definite proposals in the direction of centralisation. He proposed that the State should take over the lunatic asylums as it had taken over the prisons, and proceed, perhaps, later on, to take over the care it idiots and feebleminded people, infirmaries, and Poor Law schools. Those are suggestions into the details of which I do not propose to enter this evening; but I think the House must recognise that this question of centralisation, attractive as it may sound, has two sides to it. There is a curious, and, as I think, very often an unreasoning dread on the part of the people of this country, of Government Departments. They will accept from a county council, whose opinions they believe they can sway, that which they would not take from a Government Department; and this peculiarity of the English people, which makes government in some respects in this country infinitely more difficult than it is in some countries on the Continent, has to-be borne in mind.
  Moreover, we do not always find agreement as to what it is desirable local authorities should do. We brought in a Scottish Land Bill which proposed to relieve county councils of both the management and the cost of small holdings, and

  45
  noble Lords from Scotland and elsewhere called heaven and earth to witness that we were insulting the county councils by not allowing them to take over this entirely new duty. On the other hand, when we instituted an English Land Bill, in which great powers were given to commissioners and the central body, we were told that we were insulting English county councils by not putting proper confidence in them, and were forcing action upon them through a hard and callous bureaucracy. Therefore we see how exceedingly difficult it is to please everybody in this matter.
  The noble Viscount who has just sat down dealt particularly with the London County Council. He gave a most interesting and epigrammatic list of the vast number of duties which are now thrown upon that authority. He instanced all the duties connected with the care of children from the time of their first appearance in the world. As the noble Viscount went through the list, I could not help thinking what an enormous benefit it is that there should be this network of machinery for the advantage of the children; and I do not believe that if those duties were undertaken directly by a Government Department there would be anything but considerable dissatisfaction, among the people mainly concerned, at what they would conceive to be the prying of a central Government Department, Then the noble Viscount went on to speak of water and of the sometimes analogous substance milk, and the other matters with which the London County Council have to deal. One wonders exactly what it is with which the noble Viscount would like the body of which he is such an ornament to part. What would he like handed over to the central authority? The noble Viscount spoke somewhat severely of the fact that my right hon. friend Mr. Burns did not receive a deputation from the London County Council on the subject of housing. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. friend intended no discourtesy to that body. I assume he considered that his proposals would have the chance of being carefully considered by the London County Council as well as by Parliament before there was any question of their becoming law.
  46
  The noble Earl who initiated this debate dealt with the subject of local taxation in its broadest aspect. His complaint all through was that the burden was to a great extent placed upon the wrong shoulders. In reply to that we say that, as far as one half of it is concerned, that can only be dealt with by an improved system of valuation, that is to say, that so far as property which is at present subject to, rates is concerned, valuation alone will properly allocate the burden to be borne by each class of property. It is equally true, however, that no system of valuation will deal with the other half of the noble Earl's complaint—that is that certain kinds of property do not, in his view, bear their proper share of burden. Personal property does not contribute. How does the noble Earl propose to deal with that? He proposes to broaden the basis of taxation, which might, perhaps, if I desired to be uncivil, be described as a shibboleth, but which I prefer to describe as a convenient Parliamentary phrase. Different people, I believe, attach different meanings to it. The meaning which I suppose the noble Earl attaches to it is the imposition of a duty for purposes of revenue—a small duty on a large number of imported articles. That is the inter-pretation which I assume the noble Earl places upon it. Nobody denies that it would be possible to raise a certain amount of revenue in that way; but you will not by that method get at the man you want to get at for this particular purpose. The man at whom I suppose the noble Earl wants to get is the man who has a million in Consols, lives in a flat, possibly keeps a yacht and a string of racehorses, and contributes a mere trifle to the rates. You will not get at him by broadening the basis of taxation. The only way of getting at him will be either by a graduated income tax or increased death duties. I do not see how that particular gentleman, or the other gentleman who is making £30,000 or £40,000 a year on the Stock Exchange and is living in a villa, can be got at in any other way. They can only be got at by some fiscal changes of the kind that I have indicated.
  I will not dwell on the other points that have been mentioned, nor on the subject of compounding. I should merely like to confirm what my noble

  47
  friend Lord Wolverhampton said—that we do attach the greatest importance to the Report of the Poor Law Commission in dealing with this whole subject. The noble Viscount who has just spoken rather twitted us with touching old-age pensions before receiving the Report of the Poor Law Commission, but if he will look at the Old-Age Pensions Bill he will see that there is no proposal in that measure which can in any way compromise or interfere with any proposition which the Commission may make. I desire to say this, because the point is a very obvious one to make by those who criticise the old-age pension scheme. With regard to Papers, perhaps the noble Earl will defer his request until I have had an opportunity of consulting Mr. Burns, when we will see what Papers and Returns can be produced so as to bring our information more up to date.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I might perhaps be allowed to remind the House that in the concluding words of my speech in initiating this debate I specially said that I considered it to be no business of mine to point out to His Majesty's Government in what way the money should be raised by the Government which would undoubtedly be required for the purpose of making a very large contribution to the burdens now borne by the local ratepayers. That is a matter which I left, entirely to His Majesty's Government. I am bound to state that I do not very much care how they find the money so long as they do find it. I need hardly say that in view of what the noble Earl opposite has just said, I do not intend to press my Motion for Papers, although I was profoundly disappointed when Lord Allendale told the House he was unable to comply with my request. I join with Viscount Wolverhampton in saying that the public servants of this country are not only extremely able but very willing, and I am certain that if His Majesty's Government thought fit to invite those who are quite capable of dealing with this subject in the way the noble Viscount did in 1893 to give their attention to it, the Blue-book might be brought up to date and would be a very valuable contribution to the subject. I mentioned in my speech in opening this debate that I was very largely indebted to a Return submitted
  48
  to the Central Land Association by a gentleman in Gloucester. I only want that amplified and enlarged. That is quite within the power of Government officials, and I do not think it would involve any very large expense. I was, therefore, glad to hear the noble Earl say that if I would defer my request for the present and leave the matter in the hands of His Majesty's Government they would, notwithstanding what was said by the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board, do what they could to meet our
  request.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.