Sitting of 29 July 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Birmingham Corporation Bill,
Great Western Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th July, and agreed to.
Leighton Buzzard Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Swindon Corporation (Wilts and Berks Canal Abandonment) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third reading deferred till To-morrow.
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Friday.
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill,
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Consideration, as amended, deferred from To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock, till Friday.

EAST INDIA TRADE.
Copy presented of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries, 1908–9 to 1912–13 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1913. Vol. XLVIII. Part IV. Imports and Exports of Corn, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INCLOSURE ACTS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 13th August, 1913; Mr. Higham]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation (Scotland) Returns for the year 1912–13 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Sixty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland for the year ended 31st December, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Fifth Report of the Commissioners appointed to inventory the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Wales and Monmouthshire, and to specify those which seem most worthy of preservation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
Copy presented of Papers relating to a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the question of the ownership of land in Southern Rhodesia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1914–15).
Estimate presented of further Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 400.]
FORESHORES.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 27th July, 1914, directing the application of Moneys received by the Board of Trade in the year ended 31st March, 1914, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the Foreshores of the United Kingdom [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Third Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in assessing incomes from possessions abroad for 1914–15, the average income of the three preceding years will be taken in the case of a person coming to this country for the first time after 5th April, 1914?
  The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Where liability arises in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member, I am advised that the basis of the charge is the income arising in the year.

  National School Teachers, Ireland (Pension Seheme).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to furnish full particulars of the new pension scheme for Irish teachers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am in communication with the Departments concerned with a view to the preparation of the necessary rules.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the tenants in the West Riding of small holdings acquired by the county council under
  1308
  the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, are paying the sinking fund on the land purchased under the Act by the council, and, if so, what is the amount per cent. being paid by them as sinking fund in respect of each loan granted to the council for the purchase of land; and what is the amount per cent. being paid as sinking fund by the council and to whom is it paid in respect of each such loan?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The rents of small holdings created by the West Riding County Council are sufficient to meet the interest and sinking fund charges on the capital outlay of the council. The amount of the sinking fund for loans for the purchase of land is 4s. 8d. per £100, and this amount is included in the tenants' rents, and is paid by the county council to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, from whom the loans are borrowed.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether tenants of small holdings acquired by county councils under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, are still to be required to pay in their rents the sinking fund for repayment of capital expended on buildings and any other equipment of their holdings?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer is in the affirmative. Buildings and other works of equipment are wasting securities and there is no hardship on the tenants in having to pay a sinking fund charge based on the probable life of the work.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether those tenants of small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, who up to date have paid in their rents any portion of the sinking fund in respect of land purchased by the county councils will be refunded such portion; and, if so, whether by the county councils or by the Government?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has received a Resolution from the county Wexford County Council, representing the injury caused to the South and East of Ireland by the closing of the ports of Dublin and Wexford; and if he will remove these restrictions forthwith and

  1309
  apply, in future, to Ireland the same practice as prevails in England as regards the movement of animals, or else explain why Ireland and England should be differently treated in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As I explained in answer to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, yesterday, an order has been made by the Board allowing animals shipped from Dublin and Wexford to be landed at certain British ports after to-morrow for slaughter within the landing-places. The regulation of the movement of animals in Ireland is a matter for the Irish Department, but if the last part of the question refers to the restrictions upon the landing of Irish animals in Great Britain, I can assure my hon. Friend that the precautions taken by the Board to prevent the introduction of disease are not more stringent than those taken in similar circumstances by the Irish Department.

  Housing Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the event of a public utility society commencing building operations this summer in a district where there is a shortage of workmen's cottages, nine-tenths of the required capital will be obtainable on loan from the Public Works Loans Commissioners, as well as the extension of the period of the loan and the reduction of the rate of interest hitherto authorised; and what in future will be the rate of interest charged upon such loans?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Treasury have provisionally approved the following conditions for loans to authorised societies under the Housing Bill: the proportion of the required capital which may be borrowed will be nine-tenths instead of two-thirds as at present, the maximum period of the loans will be sixty years instead of forty, and the rate of repayment, including interest and sinking fund, will be 4½ per cent. instead of £4 16s. 11d.
  Mr. BATHURST: Will these improved terms be available at once in the event of cottages being put in hand by these societies forthwith?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the Bill passes, they will be available on the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. BATHURST: But not otherwise?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: But not otherwise.
  Mr. J. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how these terms differ from the average Grants to local authorities for the same purpose, and will they always be given on the sixty years' period of repayment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot carry in my mind the whole of the terms that apply to local authorities. Local authorities are advanced the whole of their capital expenditure, and the rate of interest is below that fixed for the societies. In every respect the local authorities have advantages over the societies.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL MARINE OFFICERS.
    Captain WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will be able to remove the temporary suspension of the Order in Council of the 29th March, 1881, and allow Royal Marine officers to voluntarily retire on pensions and gratuities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is hoped that as soon as the officers entered by direct commission become available for duty the suspension of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1881, may be removed. The first batch should be available for embarkation in a ship of war to complete their training by September, 1915, and the remaining batches will similarly become available year by year.
    Captain WILSON: Am I to understand that the suspension of this Order in Council is not going to be removed until the date in 1915 mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It will not be removed until the officers entered by direct commission become available.
    Captain WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great hardship on individual officers caused by the suspension of this Order in Council?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.
    Captain WILSONasked whether the reason for suspending temporarily the Order in Council of the 29th March, 1881, is due to shortage of officers in the Royal Marines; and, if so, what is the cause of such shortage.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the shortage is due to the increasing requirements of the Fleet and to the greater length of the present course of training of officers before becoming available for general duty.
    Captain WILSON: Is it not a fact that the shortage of officers is due to a very large extent to the fact that the Fisher scheme of entry, as it is known, has completely failed in regard to Royal Marine officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir. I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman the reasons for the shortage in the answer.

    Forest of Dean (Deputy Surveyor).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked how, if at all, the duties and emoluments of the new deputy-surveyor of the Forest of Dean will differ from those of the present holder of that office?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The new deputy-surveyor of the Forest of Dean will be responsible, like the present holder of that office, for the local management of the forest. He will, however, be provided with responsible assistants particularly for estate management purposes, in order that he may be able to devote an adequate amount of time to the educational work arising from the utilisation of the forest as a forestry demonstration area, including occasional lectures to students and supervision of their practical studies. The present holder has a salary of £700, with house and land rent free and a small allowance of wood. He provides his own means of locomotion in the forest. The new deputy-surveyor will have a salary of £600, rising to £800, with a house and garden rent free, or alternatively a somewhat higher salary coupled with payment by him of a rent for the house and garden. He will also have a mileage allowance for expenses of moving about his district.
    Mr. BATHURST: Does that mean that the deputy-surveyor will himself give lectures on forestry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. He will have charge of the educational arrangements in the forest and will give occasional lectures, though it will not be necessary for him to give a great deal of his time to lecturing.
    Mr. BATHURSTasked on how many and on what occasions and to what extent
    1312
    there has been either an increase or a decrease in the Crown contribution in lieu of payment of rates in the Forest of Dean during the last twenty-five years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The amount of the Crown contribution in lieu of rates in the Forest of Dean varies, of course, with the amount in the £ levied on private property and the area of forest land under inclosure from time to time; it also increases where new buildings are erected on Crown land and decreases when old buildings are demolished and not replaced. There has been a large increase during the last twenty-five years in the area inclosed, and each new inclosure has been followed by a new contribution by the same period in the rateable values of Crown properties, as fixed by the Treasury financial year 1913–14 was nearly double the amount paid twenty-five years ago. As regards increases or decreases in the same period in the rateable values of Crown properties, as fixed by the Treasury valuers, the changes have been as follows: In 1900 some additional inclosures were valued at 5s. an acre, as against 10s. an acre on older inclosures, the assessment of which was considered far too high but was left undisturbed for the time as temporary compromise. In 1909 a level rate of 6s. an acre over all inclosures was arranged for a period of five years, which has now expired, and a fresh valuation is being made.
    Mr. BATHURSTasked whether the Government propose to reduce the contribution of the Crown to local rates in the Forest of Dean; if so, by what amount; and why, seeing that their royalty revenue has been steadily increasing and that they own the greater part of the property and wealth of the district, it has been decided to take a step which will throw an additional charge upon its poor and already burdened ratepayers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question what is the fair rateable value per acre of the woodlands is at present being inquired into by the Treasury valuer, who has also under consideration the rateable value of cottages which are alleged to be underrated, and of new buildings which have been erected by the Crown and have not yet been brought into account for rating purposes. I am unable to say whether the net result will on the whole be to diminish the amount of the Crown's total contribution or not. The local rates on mints are paid by the galees.
    Mr. BATHURST: As there is a general opinion in the district that there is to be a reduction in the Crown contribution, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his opinion that is likely to be the result?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. I have said in the answer that I cannot say whether there will be a reduction or not. It is impossible until the Treasury valuer has finished his work to find out whether it will be a larger or smaller sum which will be paid.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the Government is generally assessed more largely in other places as the rates increase?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no exception, of course. The Treasury valuers follow exactly the same principles in the Forest of Dean as are employed elsewhere.

  POST OFFICE.

    INCREASED PAY (NORWICH).
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Postmaster-General if postmen at Norwich are yet receiving the increased pay recommended by the Holt Committee; if not, can he say when the increase will come into operation; and whether it will be retrospective as from the end of January last?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The adjustments of pay under the Holt Committee's recommendations have not yet been carried out at Norwich, but the matter is in hand, and instructions for payment will be issued in the course of a few days. The improved scales will, of course, date back to the 2nd February last.

    Glasgow Corporation (Provisional Order).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chairman of Ways and Means whether, in the case of the Glasgow Corporation (Water, Tramways, etc.) Provisional Order, an application was made by the agents for the promoters that, as the proposals in the Order were of great magnitude and of such a character, it be proceeded with in Parliament as a substituted Bill under the provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and not as a Provisional Order before a Commission sitting in Scotland?
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): Yes, Sir.

    Trinity House Service (South Wales).
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any changes are contemplated in the place of the establishment of the headquarters of the Trinity House service in South Wales; and whether the removal of the tender "Ready" is contemplated from Cardiff to some other port?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The Trinity House propose to establish a central depot at Swansea in the place of their depots at Neyland and Cardiff and to dispose of the tender "Ready" and, as far as possible, to work the combined districts with one steamer only. These changes are proposed with a view to centralisation, efficiency, and economy in the South Wales district of the Trinity House service. I am informed by the Trinity House that it is not anticipated that the Swansea depot will be ready for occupation for about two years, and that in the meantime the tender will not be removed.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will consider the payment of wages to the men employed in the tender "Ready" of the Trinity House service at Cardiff weekly instead of as at present; and (2) whether he will consider the granting of permanent and certain leave every year to the men employed in the Trinity House service?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: These are matters in the first place for the consideration of the Trinity House, with whom I am communicating.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether an inquiry can be held into the scale of pay of the men employed in the Trinity House service, having in view the greatly increased cost of living?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The scale of pay of the men employed in the Trinity House service has only recently been improved, and I see no reason for further inquiry in the matter.

    "Empress of Ireland" (Commission of Inquiry).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has received the full Report of the "Empress of Ireland" Commission; and, in view of the importance of that

    1315
    Report in relation to safety of life at sea, if he will cause it to be published before the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Bill is submitted to the House for Third Reading?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the s.s. "Empress of Ireland" will be published as a Parliamentary Paper immediately on the receipt of the official copy from the Canadian authorities. My right hon. Friend cannot, however, undertake to delay the proceedings on the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Bill as suggested by the hon. Member.

    National College of Agriculture (Scotland).
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is proposed to found a National College of Agriculture for Scotland in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh; and, if so, has he considered what effect such a proposal will have upon the status of the existing agricultural colleges in Glasgow and Aberdeen?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am not aware of any such proposal, but I understand that the governors of the Edinburgh Agricultural College are considering a suggestion for the transference of that college from the city to the country. I do not know what their decision will be, but I do not see why it should affect the status of the other colleges to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Before any proposal is put forward that the students of Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities should go to Edinburgh, will the House have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not heard of any proposal that the students should go to Edinburgh.

    Housing of Working Classes Act.
    Sir MATHEW WILSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, when giving his decision to a deputation of the members of the Metropolitan borough of Bethnal Green with regard to the Brady Street area, he was aware of the fact that other areas whose sanitary conditions were not so bad as that of the area mentioned have been
    1316
    treated under Part I. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act; and whether, taking this fact into consideration and the paucity of funds at the disposal of this small borough, he will reconsider his decision and treat this area under Part I. instead of Part II. of the above-mentioned Act?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have not yet given a decision in the matter referred to, and before doing so I shall certainly consider all relevant circumstances.
    Sir MATHEW WILSON: Owing to the unsatisfactory answer, I will raise this point on the Adjournment this evening.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MATERNITY BENEFIT.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the hon. Member for St. George's in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, (1) whether the Commissioners have approved the maternity benefit claim form adopted by certain approved societies, on which the doctor or midwife who attended the case is required to certify the accuracy of the information given by the person claiming the benefit, and the bona fides of the claim; whether, in view of the fact that medical practitioners and midwives are not as a rule in a position to give this certificate, several insured persons have been unable to obtain the benefit they claim; and if it is proposed to prepare and cause to be adopted by all approved societies a common form of maternity benefit claim to which objection cannot be taken; and (2) whether he is aware that the National Amalgamated Approved Society has refused to pay the maternity benefit claim of Frederick W. Robinson, of 74, Linden Crescent, Folkestone, in respect of a confinement which took place on the 8th of December, 1913, on the ground that the doctor in attendance has refused to give a certificate of the bona fides of the claim and the accuracy of the information given by the claimant, as these are matters beyond his knowledge, and instead has given a certificate to the effect that he attended the confinement, which the society has refused to accept; whether he can take any steps to ascertain if the claimant is entitled to the benefit; and, if so, if he will direct that it be paid?
    Mr WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): A model form for maternity claims has been issued, but the Commissioners have no power to require its adoption. In the case referred to the claim has now been paid, and the form in question is under revision.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it not the fact that doctors and midwives are required to vouchsafe information of which they cannot possibly have any knowledge?
    Mr. BENN: In the case of the form to which the hon. Baronet refers that is so, but that form is being revised.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the auditors of the Insurance Commissioners require a certificate of marriage to be produced in the case of every claim for maternity benefit; and, if so, whether, seeing that the model rules of an approved society as provided for by the Insurance Act, and approved by the Com missioners, state that a society may, if it so requires but not otherwise, demand the production of such certificate, the Com missioners will dispense with the production of such certificate when the society's officials deem it to be unnecessary?
    Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 25th June to the hon. Member for the Gorton Division.

    DECEASED DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTOR (NEWENT).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether the attention of the Insurance Commissioners has been directed to the case of a farm labourer, a deposit contributor in the jurisdiction of the Newent District Committee, who fell ill in February last, having £2 0s. 5d. to his credit; whether, on application for two weeks' benefit at 10s., he was sent a postal order for 17s. 2d. only; whether he is aware that the man died on 5th March, leaving a wife and seven children, and that on 2nd May the postman delivered seven separate envelopes directed to the widow and six of the seven children each containing two circulars and two postal orders, those for the widow being for 3s. 10d. and 2s. 2d., and for each of the six children 1s. 3d. and 9d., a total of 18s.; whether it is intended to pay over, and to whom, the remaining 5s. 3d.; what payment will be made to the seventh child; and whether the normal procedure has been followed in this case?
    Mr. BENN: The case to which the hon. Member refers is probably one in which a contributor who died on 5th March, 1914, had a balance of £1 13s. 9d. standing to his credit at the date of his sickness in February, 1914. The insurance committee certified for payment of sickness benefit for twelve days, and a sum of 17s. 2d. was accordingly sent to the contributor. After his death the committee certified for a further payment of sickness benefit for eight days to the date of death. The usual inquiries were made by the committee, and on their certificate supporting a claim on behalf of the widow and six children the Insurance Commissioners paid over the amount of the outstanding sickness benefit together with the statutory proportion of four-sevenths of the balance remaining in the account.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Is it the case that fourteen postal orders of small amounts from 9d. to 3s. 10d. were sent to the widow and six children, and, if that is so, why was the seventh child not allowed to receive anything?
    Mr. BENN: I do not know about the seventh child. As regards the other children, they are each paid a fair proportion of the sum belonging to the deceased person.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries about the seventh child?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, I will. I fancy a mistake was made about that child.

    Fatal Street Accidents (Metropolis).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were killed in the Metropolitan Police area and the City during the first six months of the year by each class of vehicle using the streets?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): During the period mentioned 242 persons were killed—fifty-five by horse vehicles, fifty-five by motor omnibuses, fifteen by tramcars, nineteen by motor cabs, forty-five by private motor cars, thirty-five by commercial motor vehicles, fourteen by motor cycles, and four by other cycles.

    Mines (Inspectors' Reports).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether he will at once issue for

    1319
    circulation among Members those Reports for 1013 from the inspectors of mines which have not yet been issued?
    Mr. McKENNA: All the reports have been out for some time. The last two were issued on the 17th of July. I understand that in accordance with the general rule applicable to the distribution of Command Papers, they are not circulated to Members, but can be obtained by Members interested on application at the Vote Office.

    Fatal Boxing Match, Maidenhead.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the inquest held at Maidenhead on the body of William Walter England, a young man of twenty-two, who received his fatal injuries at a boxing match, advertised as a champion fight for £25 a side, and which took place at the Maidenhead Hippodrome last Wednesday night; whether the Home Office has power to prohibit these exhibitions; and what is the intention of the Home Office in the matter?
    Mr McKENNA: I have made inquiries, and am informed that the facts are as stated. The jury found that the deceased was accidentally killed by a blow on the temple inflicted in a lawful boxing contest. The Home Office has no power to prohibit lawful boxing exhibitions.
    Sir W. BYLES: Then, the sport of cock fighting is prohibited, and the sport of man fighting is encouraged?

    Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill.
    Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when it is pro posed to take the Committee stage of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): As soon as the report on the necessary money Resolution has been carried, and I trust that the hon. Member and his friends will assist us in carrying that Resolution without further opposition.
    Mr. HEWINS: May I ask whether the provisions of this Bill are not considerably affected by the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IMPORTATION OF ARMS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the urgency of the question, he will use his influence with the courts of law to expedite the hearing of the appeal that has been lodged against the validity of the proclamation against the importation of arms?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have done my best to expedite the hearing of this appeal, but it has been found impossible to constitute a Court, and the appeal cannot now be heard until after the Long Vacation.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is the Chief Secretary aware that all the judges are at present in Dublin?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is all very well to say that, but I have done my best to constitute a court. I am not quite sure how long the case might last, and, therefore, there are difficulties which I wish very much I could overcome.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the exact mileage from the point of debarkation at which the police have orders to refrain from seizing arms or other contraband matter in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is not a question of mileage at all, but of the police interference after disembarkation has been completely effected.
    Mr. NEWMAN: In the case of other contraband goods once they are landed, are they safe?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. The hon. Member has failed to make a distinction between the right of search by Customs officials for articles which are Customable, and which are supposed to have evaded duty, and the right of search which is supposed to belong to the police.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the defenceless condition of the Protestant minority in the, southern provinces of Ireland owing to their obedience to the Proclamation against the importation of arms; and whether he will direct the Irish Government to remove the embargo and allow the minority adequate opportunity of immediately obtaining the arms necessary to their defence?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think the hon. Member's description of the Protestants in the southern provinces is misleading, for, though undoubtedly in a great minority, I do not believe that anything will occur to place their lives and property in danger. The validity of the Proclamation is still under legal review.
    Mr. NEWMAN: If the Chief Secretary was a prudent man and a southern Protestant, would he not like to be possessed of a rifle.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask if a number of Catholic Unionists in the South of Ireland are in as much danger as Protestants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I believe that is so. They are both in the same position.

    REGIMENTS STATIONED IN IRELAND.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Secretary of State for War how many Irish regiments are at present stationed in Ire land; if he will state the number of Irish regiments that have been removed from Ireland within the last two years; the names of the said regiments; the dates of their removal; and the names of the regiments by which they were replaced?
    Mr. TENNANT: There are at present two Irish regiments stationed in Ireland, the 5th Royal Irish Lancers and the 2nd Battalion Leinster Regiment. Only one Irish regiment has left Ireland in the ordinary course of relief during the last two years, namely, the 2nd Battalion Connaught Rangers, who were relieved by the 2nd Battalion Suffolk Regiment in September, 1913.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing the Royal Dublin Fusiliers to Ireland?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the withdrawal of the Imperial troops from Ulster or any part of Ireland is contemplated in the immediate future?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. BLACKasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the six years, 1908–13, nearly one and a-half million of children have been legally
    1322
    exempted from vaccination in England and Wales under the provisions of the Vaccination Act, 1907; and whether, in view of the popularity of that measure and the wishes of the people as demonstrated through its working, he will endeavour to get the Vaccination Acts (Repeal) Bill, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Biggleswade, passed next Session?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I cannot make any promise with regard to next Session's legislation.

    Second Chamber (Reform).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to lay before the House their proposals with regard to the reform of the Second Chamber?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): We hope to be able to do so at a comparatively early date in August.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RIFLE CLUBS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the question of granting ammunition to rifle clubs either free or at reduced prices has now been under the consideration of the War Office for nearly three years, and that more than a year ago a definite decision was promised without delay, he will now announce the decision at which the War Office have arrived?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): As stated in reply to the hon. Member on the 1st July last year by my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State, this question forms part of the much wider question of the future position of rifle clubs and associations in relation to the Army. With every desire to accelerate the settlement of all the points involved, the Army Council are unable to give any immediate decision except in a negative sense, but, as I have previously stated, the matter is still not finally decided.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an answer was given recently in which it was stated that an answer to the question would be given during the present Session?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am aware of that. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter which has been the subject of difficult and delicate negotiation between the War Office and the associations for the past two years. This is rather a subsidiary point in connection with the subject.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks it possible that an answer may be given this Session?
    Mr. TENNANT: It would be very difficult for me to give an answer to that question at present. In the event of the Committee reporting in the direction which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman desires, namely, that ammunition to rifle clubs should be supplied free or at reduced prices, that would be a matter for the Treasury to consider.
    Colonel GREIG: Would not the desire of those persons to learn rifle shooting be much sooner gratified if they would join the Territorial Force instead of remaining outside of it?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is so.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WIDOW'S CLAIM).
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for War whether a Mr. Barefoot, employed for many years in the Woolwich Arsenal, who died lately, was at the time of his death entitled to a bonus of £80; whether this sum or any part of it had been paid over to his widow; and, if not, will he state why?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): I cannot identify the individual case which the hon. Member has in mind, but under the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1887, gratuities can only be granted to men discharged under certain specified conditions and cannot be given to the widow of a man who dies while still employed.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are going to be taken to alter the Superannuation Act as suggested a year ago?
    Mr. BAKER: That question ought not to be addressed to me, but the War Office has expressed its opinion upon it.

    Austria-Hungary and Servia.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice,
    1324
    namely: Whether he has communicated with the Bank of England with the view to their convening a meeting of bankers to take steps to deal with the present financial position; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of so doing without further delay?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been in consultation with the Bank of England, and I am advised that there is nothing in the financial situation at the present moment which would make such a suggestion necessary or advisable.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information in regard to the European situation to give to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As the House is aware, a formal Declaration of War was issued yesterday by Austria against Servia. The situation at this moment is one of extreme gravity. I can only say, usefully say, that His Majesty's Government are not relaxing their efforts to do everything in their power to circumscribe the area of possible conflict.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any information as to the alleged revolutionary outbreak in Russian Poland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    Dublin Disturbances.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary a question, of which I have given him notice: Who, in addition to the Under-Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—was present when the Minute relating to the gun-running incident was prepared; on what date and at what hour was the Minute signed; and on what date, at what hour, was it sent to the office of the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and when was it received by Mr. Harrel?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor was present when the Minute was prepared on Sunday, the 26th. The exact time of signature is not on record, but probably it was shortly before five o'clock. It was sent to the Dublin Metropolitan Police office in Dublin Castle at once, and

    1325
    was opened by the late Chief Commissioner, who was then in the office. It was sent by bicyclist to Mr. Harrel, who tells me that he received it about 5.45 o'clock.
    Mr. DILLON: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether there is any foundation for the statement made in several of the Dublin papers yesterday that Mr. Harrel was at that moment in the Kildare Street Club?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know to what time the hon. Member refers, and I cannot answer the question. It was 5.45 when he received the message. He was at the Amiens Street station after the incident bad occurred, directing the police who were returning to barracks from Howth.
    Mr. DILLON: I would press the right hon. Gentleman on this point, and if he has not the information I would press him to obtain it, as to whether as a fact when Mr. Harrel was asked to attend in the Under-Secretary's office in the Castle he was at that moment in the Kildare Street Club.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot answer that.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Is it not the case that the House was led to understand that that Minute was sent immediately after the meeting at Dublin Castle about 2.45, and does it not now appear that it was only written after the incident was practically over?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Minute was prepared at the time which I have indicated. It was after various attempts had been made from Dublin Castle to find out the whereabouts of Mr. Harrel, and, those attempts having failed, the Minute was prepared at the time I have indicated, shortly before five o'clock. It was then sent over to the police office as I have described. I have no knowledge of the chronology of the case, and I am not in any way responsible for any impression that may have been created.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary gave the House to understand that they had endeavoured to get Mr. Harrel to give him this Minute, when, as a fact, it had not been prepared until the whole thing was over?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No. If Sir James Dougherty had been able to get hold of Mr. Harrel he would have given him the Minute by word of mouth.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he could have given him the contents of a Minute before it was written?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Because what Sir James Dougherty would have done would have been to prohibit, as far as he could, Mr. Harrel from invoking the intervention of the military.
    Mr. DILLON: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary again whether, in the efforts to obtain Mr. Harrel before the Minute was written, a search was made for him at the Kildare Street Club?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not want in any way to make statements of a kind which I am not in a position to verify, nor am I at all desirous of making any statements affecting Mr. Harrel. The whole subjectmatter is under review. Sir James Dougherty, when he comes to give any evidence, will be better able than I am to state the efforts that he made through the telephone to get hold of Mr. Harrel, and to say where Mr. Harrel was at any particular moment.
    Mr. DILLON: I beg to give notice that I shall repeat this question, and I ask the Chief Secretary to obtain the information for this House: Whether at the time Mr. Harrel was summoned to attend at the Castle to receive the orders of the Executive Government he was in the Kildare Street Club, the headquarters of the Unionist party in Dublin?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will obtain further information for the House, in deference to the request made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. Will he at the same time inform us, or inform us now if he can, in the first place at what hour the Lord Chancellor arrived at the Castle, and in the second place how the Under-Secretary knew what steps had been taken by Mr. Harrel on his own responsibility to deal with the men "now marching into Dublin"? The passage in the Minute is this:—
    "As regards the steps which you have taken on your own responsibility to deal with the arms landed at Howth this morning, His Excellency is advised that forcible disarmament of the men now marching into Dublin with these arms should not in all the circumstances be attempted."
    When did they get that information? From what source did they get it, and why could they not in any case, when they got the information, communicate with the troops, with the police, and with Mr. Harrel?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have addressed identical questions yesterday, though not in exactly the same language, to the Under-Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, and when I get the information I will certainly give it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I must ask the Chief Secretary how it was possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—that the Minute which was written after the event could contain the words "troops now marching into Dublin?"
    Mr. BIRRELL: Everybody knows that they were marching into Dublin, and Mr. Harrel in his first communication by telephone told Sir James Dougherty, who was then in his house in the Phœnix Park at two o'clock, that this was so. [HON. MEMBERS: "This was five o'clock!"] The whole thing arose out of Mr. Harrel receiving that information, and deeming it to be his duty to act in a particular way upon it. All I say is that Sir James Dougherty was down at the Castle at 2.45, and if Mr. Harrel had then come across him he would have received from Sir James Dougherty, not in the form of a Minute, but in the form of words, exactly what afterwards was put on the Minute.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not the case that the Minute which contained the words "steps which you have taken" bears upon its face evidence that it was written after definite steps had been taken and after it was recognised that it was impossible to stop those steps?
    Mr. BIRRELL: People must form their own judgment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why it was that, as stated by him, he received no information as to the occurrence in Dublin until Monday morning?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is not so at all. I received the information on Sunday of what had taken place. On Monday morning the first thing I did was to telegraph to ascertain why the military had been employed.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman is reported as having said that when the news first reached him on Monday morning his first inclination was to suspend Sir John Boss, will he say was that an error on the part of the reporter or of himself?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Very likely it may have been an error on the part of myself. I am not going to accuse any reporter or anybody else.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Upon whose authority did the Under-Secretary convey that very definite order to Mr. Harrel?
    Mr. BIRRELL: On the authority of the Lord Lieutenant.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Where was Sir John Ross when this search was made for Mr. Harrel?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot answer that question. All I know is that when the Minute was sent from Dublin Castle about five o'clock, Sir John Ross was in his office.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what business will be taken after Eleven o'clock to-morrow night?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall conclude the Milk and Dairies Bill, and take the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: In the event of the Amending Bill not being finished tomorrow, to what date does the right hon. Gentleman propose to adjourn it?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not say until to-morrow.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the Housing Bill stand good for Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will nothing else be taken on Friday except the Housing Bill?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.

  NOTICES OF MOTION.
  On going into Committee on the East India Revenue Accounts,
  To call attention to the Question of Excise, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Herbert Roberts.]
  To call attention to the operation of the India Press Act, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Edmund Harvey.]
  To call attention to the progress of Education in India, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Aneurin Williams.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 401.]

PRIVATE BILLS.
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to,—
Gas Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, with an Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Gas Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Wadhurst and District Gas Bill,
Southend Gas Bill,
Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill,
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Bristol Corporation (Various Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Motor Omnibus and Trolley Vehicle Traffic,
That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution,
1338
namely: That is is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire and report as to the present Law relating to the running of Motor Omnibuses and Trolley Vehicles under statutory powers and otherwise; whether any amendment is necessary with respect to the control to be exercised by local authorities; and what contribution, if any, should be payable towards the cost of road maintenance by the proprietors of such vehicles.
Gas Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Third Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BILL PRESENTED.
  POST OFFICE (ILLEGAL USER) BILL.
  "To prevent the use of His Majesty's Post Office in connection with businesses or transactions carried on or effected abroad which, if carried on in England, would be illegal." Presented by Mr. HOBHOUSE; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 346.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [EIGHTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    SCOTTISH LAND COURT.— [Class III.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,700, 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, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Scottish Land Court."—[Note.—£4,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I rise in place of the hon. Member for Buteshire, who is unable, I regret, to be present, and it devolves upon me to start the Debate on this particular Vote. It will be my duty, as it has been on more than one occasion in this House, to express very vigorously my views upon the Scottish Land Court, and I do not withdraw a single word of what I have said about it. But I am glad to be able on this occasion to acknowledge that there seems to be a decided improvement in the conduct of their business. Their unjudicial remarks have been complained of more than once—
    Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I wish to ask, Sir, whether criticisms will be allowed on the procedure of the Land Court under this Vote? As you are aware, Sir, the members of the Land Court are in a judicial position, and therefore, as their salaries are not in this Vote, any obiter dicta from them in the discharge of their duties cannot come under the Vote we are discussing. As only the expenses are included in this Vote, and those are the expenses of the Court, I wish to ask whether any criticism can be allowed on the judicial conduct of members of the Court?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: On the point of Order. Last year, before proceeding to discuss the Vote, you, Sir, ruled, and the Speaker has ruled since, that although the salaries are not on the Vote, and although we cannot discuss the action of individual Members, we are entitled on this Vote to discuss the procedure and work of the Court as a whole.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is quite correct in regard to the decision which I gave last year; he has quite accurately quoted it. Although it is true that the salaries and expenses are on the Consolidated Fund, that does not take away from the Committee the right to criticise the general procedure and work of the Court.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: This point of Order has been raised three times, and dealt with on each occasion; and I proceed to say what I was trying to say when the hon. Member interrupted me, namely, that I am entitled to make the statement that I made formerly as to the conduct of the Land Court and their method of procedure. They are much more fair towards witnesses and much more inclined to hear
    1340
    them; but though their methods have improved, I am afraid the results are exactly the same as before, and there appears to be an undoubted bias, which—
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Baronet entitled to allege bias?
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not catch the word. The hon. Baronet correctly stated himself the nature of the criticism which might be brought against the work of the Court, and that precludes any kind of charge being made which cannot be made against the judge of the Court.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I withdraw the expression, and I will content myself by saying that, although their methods show an improvement, the results are exactly the same as before. The duties of the Land Court are mainly to determine judicial rents, and to hear and pronounce upon schemes presented to the Court. The Land Court has been very much occupied during the last year in dealing with the question of fixing rents. They complain of the length of time which that has involved, and of the very great increase of work which naturally arose from the increase of rental from £30 to £50, which resulted in bringing in a large number of holdings which were exempt under the Crofters Act, in addition to all the other holdings in the other parts of Scotland, with which they have to deal. In dealing with the whole question of rents, and also with that of schemes, a great deal of litigation has arisen, largely because the interpretation put upon the Act by the Court has been very, very wide, and a large number of questions of great importance have had to be decided on appeal by the Court of Session. The constitution, for example, of a holding consisting mainly of a dwelling house with a little bit of land, perhaps half an acre or an acre, naturally, of course, raises the question of legal interpretation, and it appeared to be to anyone who intelligently regarded it as a very excessive stretching of the law. Undoubtedly the terms of the Act are extremely wide, and it may be that the Court was perfectly justified in a case of that sort in creating such holdings as statutory small holdings. Such, I think, was not contemplated by the framers of the Act, and it was very obvious that in cases of the kind questions of importance would arise which would have to be decided by the Court of Session. In the first three

    1341
    or four appeals the Land Court decisions on the particular questions were upheld, and they legitimately and naturally with a certain amount of pride call attention to that in their Report, and describe at length the decision in those cases, and their own decisions with regard to them. It struck me when I read the Report that it was rather a mercy it ended on 31st December, and was not brought up to date as the Land Court has had two very severe falls since that time. I think if the Report was up to date that they would pass over in comparative obscurity the four smaller points on which they were successful. Their decisions have been condemned by the Court of Session in those two cases.
    Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I wish to know the exact position. The hon. Baronet is now discussing the decision in the first place of the Land Court in regard to the interpretation of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, and he goes into the number of cases which have been appealed to the Court of Session and the number of cases that have been reversed. If he criticises the decisions of the Land Court, are we entitled to discuss the decisions of the Court of Session, because the position of the Court of Session is exactly the same as this Court since the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Session are on the Consolidated Fund and the expenses on the Votes.
    Colonel GREIG: Are these cases that have been decided by the Court of Session appealable to the House of Lords; if so, those cases may still be sub judice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not really know how that can be a point of Order. I am not discussing the Court of Session. I am discussing merely the fact that in this Report which we are entitled to discuss, the Land Court register the fact that four of the cases taken to the Court of Session on appeal were decided in their favour. I am merely saying that two more have been decided against the Land Court by the Court of Session, and two cases of very much greater importance than those alluded to in the Report. I do so in order to make good my point, as to which I made a previous complaint, against the Land Court's administration of this Statute. As far as I can see that does not involve any question of judges' salaries or anybody else's salaries. It is a mere matter of administration.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is this not a question of distinction between interpretation and administration?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I submit my hon. Friend is doing no more than is constantly being done in referring to decisions such as that in the Lumsden case, and with regard to other cases arising out of the 1909–10 Finance Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have the fortune or misfortune not to be a Scottish lawyer, and I must do my best. I did not understand the hon. Baronet to do anything more than relate facts, and nothing, I think, was said in the nature of criticism of the judicial acts of this Court.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The fact is that those two hon. Members opposite know-that they have such a very bad case in supporting this Court that they are extremely nervous of what anyone may say on this subject. The best proof that my complaints are well founded is the nervous attitude of the hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What is your contention?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am addressing the House of Commons and not the hon. Member.
    Mr. BOOTH: Only the Committee.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Say what you mean.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to charge me with not saying what I mean. I always say straight out what I mean. I told the hon. Member just now and I am quite prepared to do so again should the necessity arise. I have said all I wanted to say on this point and I am glad, Sir, you allowed me to go on without any serious interruption. With regard to the very important question of the fixing of statutory rents in the case of small holdings by the Court there is really some explanation due I think as to the principles on which they proceed and continue to fix those rents as they are doing. I quite admit it would be impossible and quite unfair to discuss the very large reductions of rent which have been made by the Land Court in the case of certain statutory tenants, and in the course of fixing first fair rents, because the facts are not before us. We have no information as to why those reductions were made, and it might be that the grounds for those reductions were in many or most cases

    1343
    quite reasonable. It is impossible to say, as we do not know the details, but one thing that strikes me with great force, and I have mentioned it before, is that equally great reductions, or very nearly as great reductions, are being made by the Land Court on rents valued by their predecessors, the Crofters' Commission, within the last few years, and, in face of the fact, which everybody knows, that the whole of the produce of those crofts, both in stock and cereals, have improved in price during the period, and that agriculture is much more flourishing in Scotland than it has been in past years when those rents were fixed as being suitable as fair rents, and that, therefore, there cannot on the face of it be any sound reason for the enormous reductions which are being made on those valued rents by their predecessors in the Crofters' Commission. One is entitled to deduce from that fact, at all events, a doubt as to whether, as we do not think those reductions are quite fair, the other reductions are not entitled to be placed in a similar category. I do think the Committee is entitled to complain that the Land Court in this Report are absolutely silent as to the principles on which they are acting. Why should the country not know the principles on which they are acting? Why should they not disclose their reasons, not in every individual case, but generally their reasons for acting as they are doing, and what are the grounds for these enormous reductions on the rents fixed by the Crofters' Commission?
    I thought they were getting near to saying something in one part of this Report on the question of rent when they made the remark that the average man did not understand the difference between equitable rent and fair rent. I am pretty certain that if the Land Court know the difference there is nothing in their decisions to show that they do. "Equitable rent" is a term imported into the Small Landholders Act in connection with statutory tenancies where improvements were made by the landlord, in order to make it perfectly clear that ordinary commercial rents would be fixed in dealing with those tenancies. We wanted to rule out any question of competitive or sentimental rents on the one side, and the extreme oh which fair rent is fixed on the other, leaving the ordinary market rent as the rent to be fixed in dealing with these statutory small holders. I see no sign whatever in any of the decisions which are known
    1344
    to me that the slightest difference is made by the Land Court between an equitable rent and a fair rent. I presume that this remark that the ordinary man does not understand the difference between the two is intended to cover the fact that they themselves do not recognise it. It may be held in Jaw—the case has not been decided—that the Statute itself makes no difference. What I say is that those who framed the Statute, those who were responsible for it as part of the bargain made at the time, intended that there should be a very considerable difference, and it is very unfortunate that they have not succeeded in making that clear. It was not the intention of Parliament at the time that there should not be an entire difference in the fixing of rents in the two cases.
    With regard to the general procedure of the Land Court, I complained on the Second Reading of the recent measure, which is still on the Paper, but which does not seem to be in a very flourishing state, that the inspections made by the Land Court in the fixing of these rents were not at all of a satisfactory kind. No inspection can be of any use at all in deciding on the fertility of land unless it is made in the season of the year when the crops are in the ground. To go in the middle of winter, in a snowstorm or a fog, and dig down a few inches into the land and judge what is its natural fertility may be possible for some geniuses, but it is not possible, I think, for the ordinary human being. So long as the Land Court themselves, with their very limited staff, attempt to make these inspections over the whole of Scotland, and so long as they are tied up doing as they have been doing in that particular respect, just so long will there be great complaints of the delay which arises in the formation of small holdings. As it does not seem at all probable that we shall have an Amending Act this year, I think the Secretary for Scotland would be well advised if he would speed up the working of the old Act by getting the Land Court to delegate to someone else these particular powers of inspection and rent fixing, which occupy such a tremendous amount of their time. It is a perfectly easy thing to do. There is no reason in the world why the sheriff, sitting with a couple of agricultural assessors, knowing the local position, understanding the locality, knowing the conditions of his own district ten thousand times better than any member of the Land Court can ever do, and taking into

    1345
    account everything that the Act provides shall be taken into account, should not only fix the rents to the much greater satisfaction of everybody concerned, but also relieve the Land Court of this enormous burden of work which is occupying most of their time and taking them away from work which everybody would like to see them able to discharge more expeditiously than they do. I throw out that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I have done so before. It probably would not have been necessary if an Amending Act had been passed this year, but, as that is not at all likely to take place, the proceedings will certainly be much delayed unless some such scheme of delegation is undertaken.
    I do not know that I have much more to say on this particular question. The Vote for the Board of Agriculture is probably more important; there are many more subjects to be dealt with on that Vote, and a certain amount of time is required for the other Votes. While I am glad to acknowledge an improvement in the methods of the Land Court, I am not: at all satisfied yet with the result of much of their work, and I do not think that anybody will be satisfied until we know the principles on which they are working. Is it too much to ask that we should be told? I know the Secretary for Scotland has repeatedly said in this House that the Land Court are independent of him, and that he has no control over them. That is quite true, and I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would attempt to exercise a control which he does not possess. But a hint from him would be very valuable, and I cannot believe that such a hint would be ignored by the Land Court. I think they would be ready if they could to act upon it, more particularly if he held out any prospect of relieving them of an enormous amount of work by enabling them to do what the Act entitles them to do, namely, to delegate their powers in this respect. Let the Secretary for Scotland not forget that at the present moment one member of the Court is really doing this work. In one case I think he sat without any assessors; in other cases I think he sat with two assessors. A single member of the Court is doing it now; he is detached from more important work in Edinburgh, and sent to do it. Surely sheriffs with local knowledge, assisted by two local assessors, are just as competent as any member of the Land Court to undertake that duty, and give a decision in the matter. It could be done with perfect
    1346
    simplicity and ease. It might be either the sheriff or the sheriff-substitute. Many of the sheriffs have lots of spare time; they are not overburdened with work; and I am sure they would do this work quite satisfactorily. Such an arrangement would, at all events, assist in speeding up the other work of the Court, by which the House lays so much store, and which I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite so much desires to see carried out as speedily as possible.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think, in the first place, I ought to offer the hon. Baronet opposite my sympathy on his failure to make the case which he would have liked to have made this afternoon. We all understand on what ground the Opposition have selected the Land Court Vote as the first Vote for criticism to-day. We know that the Land Court is an object of special aversion, and that it has carried out its duties in a way which is obnoxious to them. The hon. Baronet has made that perfectly clear by certain expressions which he used this afternoon—expressions which you, Sir, have declared to be out of order.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Only one of them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Chairman certainly described one of them which he heard as out of order, and I am sure he would have visited with the same condemnation certain other expressions if he had had the good fortune to hear them. I think he would have described as equally out of order the statement regarding injudicial remarks on the Bench.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order and of grammar, I said unjudicial.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I apologise to the hon. Baronet.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I like to be grammatical.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I sympathise with the hon. Baronet's touchiness on this point also. I quite understand that he feels his position keenly, and that, having failed to make his speech, he naturally resents any attribution to him of a slight failing in grammar. I am very sorry that I attributed a word to him that he did not use. It was purely a slip of the tongue on my part, and I hope the hon. Baronet will accept my apology. It is certainly the last thing that I would accuse the hon. Baronet of being guilty of, but I would say that his expressions indicated clearly the object of

    1347
    this attack upon the Land Court. The reasons for that attack were perfectly clear. The Land Court has largely reduced rents in respect of holdings over which it has jurisdiction. That, of course, is obnoxious to the party who are here to defend the interests of the landlords. The members of the Land Court have had the temerity in the course of their proceedings to treat factors, landlords, and land agents as if they were ordinary men. That, again, is a proceeding which should be visited with the most severe reprobation by anyone who represents the landlord interest in this House. The hon. Baronet objects that the Land Court have indicated no principle upon which they have acted in regard to the reduction of rents. He asserts that they have failed to make any distinction between what he calls a fair and an equitable rent. There, again, the hon. Baronet is entitled to sympathy. I believe he is the parent of the term "equitable rent"?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: No, I am not.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Then, perhaps, the hon. Baronet is one of the putative parents?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It was the Lord Advocate, if you want to know!
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the Lord Advocate and the hon. Baronet collaborated, and the term "equitable rent" was the result of their unnatural collaboration. However, he says that it was the intention of the House of Commons that something different from a fair rent should be established, and the term "equitable rent" was used. He says that the House of Commons meant an equitable rent to be a commercial rent, but not a competitive rent. I always understood that any commercial value, whether it was of land or of any other commodity, was a competitive value.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That is exactly where you are wrong. It is not always.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I shall be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understood that these values in commerce were determined by competition for the article which was being bought, sold or hired, and that it was only as a result of competition that you arrive either at a commercial price or at a commercial rent. It seems to me that in the circumstances when the hon. Baronet says we meant an equitable rent to be a commercial rent and not a competitive rent that he,
    1348
    although not guilty of any failure in grammar—the last thing of course of which I would accuse him—is certainly liable to confusion in language. The hon. Baronet having failed to deal with the actual merits of the Land Court, was able at the end to reach a somewhat safer ground, and a ground which was really relevant to the Vote which we are now discussing, namely, the general procedure of the Land Court. He brought forth once again the one leading case which he has against the Court—a celebrated visit which the Land Court paid to a somewhat remote district in the North of Scotland where a snow storm was raging. He described how on one single occasion these gentlemen cleared a small patch of land where there was a few inches of snow, and were thereby able to discover, according to themselves, the natural fertility of the soil!
    That is really the gravamen of his whole indictment against the procedure of this body, that the Members went, probably not foreseeing the state of the weather—that is to say, not knowing that in the North of Scotland a snow storm might be raging on their arrival—and not willing that the public money should be wasted decided, even under those conditions, to do their best to fulfil their very difficult functions. It is because of this that we now have the Opposition this afternoon raising the procedure of the Land Court as the first, most important, and most vital issue which can be raised on the Scottish Estimates. We all, of course, know the real ground. It was not the snow storm. It was these reductions of rent which have brought joy to the hearts of the small holders in Scotland. I was surprised indeed to find the hon. Baronet this afternoon offering an apology for the actions of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. H. Hope), who, he said, had intended to raise this question.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I did not say he would raise the question. I said he intended to speak. I do not know what he-was going to say.
    Mr. PRINGLE: He was not going to raise the question. He would certainly not be representing the views of the electors of Buteshire, and particularly of those resident in the island of Arran, by a speech like that of the hon. Baronet. I am inclined to think that his absence this afternoon, and the delegation of the duty to the hon Baronet the Member for the

    1349
    Ayr Burghs, may be explained by a perfectly natural and obvious reason—that there is a General Election not very far off. For any Member for Buteshire to make an attack upon the Land Court on the ground of the reduction of rents would be the last thing to commend him to the electors of Buteshire.
    Mr. WATSON: I confess I am not surprised at the type of speeches which have conic from the opposite side of the House on the question of small holdings. I understand, and perhaps the House can understand, the reason why the hon. Member who has just sat down professes at least to be suspicious of the choice of this Vote as the first one to be discussed, because judging from what we have heard from him, both here and in Committee, I do not think he has yet appreciated the fact that one of the most important things—although I dare say he has said it in speeches on the platform—to be pushed forward in Scotland are small holdings; therefore one of the most important Votes in the Scottish Estimates is the question of small holdings. Some people always feel the electioneering platform influence: they do not play for anything else. They do not see or understand how other people can speak on the land question. So far as I am concerned, at any rate, I welcome this chance of discussing this Vote because I think by some suggestions we may be able to expedite and make more simple the promotion of small holdings in Scotland. Everybody knows that there is very grave delay in the operations of the Land Court, and some reasons far that are fairly obvious. There is congestion. One thing which is probably at the root of the evil of delay—and which I think speeches like that to which we have just listened undoubtedly contribute—is the enmity which is attempted to be stirred up against the landlords, and which naturally makes them look with unfavourable eyes on the creation of small holdings, and makes them more suspicion of the Land Court than they are at the present time. The opposite policy is the right one. I think every sensible person would agree that it is desirable to make as clear as possible—and as the easiest way in which small holdings can be formed—the principles on which the Land Court acts. That would encourage landlords, amongst other things, to agree with their tenants upon the formation of small holdings, and save the necessity of litigation, and the necessity of going to the
    1350
    Land Court. Even though I be a lawyer I think that is what had best be done.
    One of the reasons for the congestion in the Land Court is their failure—a failure adverted to by the hon. Baronet—to give grounds for the reduction of rents—which have only been too numerous, as far as one can judge. If the reason for, or the principle on which, the Land Court reduced the rents were made known, not only to the landlord, but also to the tenants, undoubtedly there would be a better chance of the landlords and tenants agreeing without the necessity of litigation. On the other hand, by the apparent slicing off of about 20, 25, or 30 per cent., without any reason given as regards special cases, you are encouraging the tenant in the hope of getting ninepence for fourpence. Without giving reasons, good or bad, this is likely to put landlords against the Act. I think this is a very unfortunate situation. One thing that undoubtedly would save this congestion to a considerable extent would be if the Land Court would explain the principles—for surely they have principles!—upon which they act in the reduction of the rents which they have almost invariably given effect to. One other reason, I think, of delay is that the absence of giving their principles increases their work. Apart altogether from the question of agreement with the landlord you would have fewer cases. It is a familiar thing in the Law Courts to have cases that establish a leading principle which will apply to a great many cases—which are thereby obviated. We do not find that in the Land Court. That is one of my greatest complaints against it. Something was said about appeal to the Court of Session. I would remind the Committee that these appeals are on points of law only. The Land Court is final as to questions of fact. In a case which is stated for appeal to the Court of Session the facts are stated by the Land Court itself. They prepare the statement of facts upon which the question of law is asked.
    One regard in which they have shown great and serious delay is in respect to the revisal of these stated cases. The hon. Member opposite referred to the Arran case. It is just a year since these cases were decided by the Land Court, who were asked to state a case. That case has not been stated yet by the Land Court, and there is no immediate prospect of it being ready for the Court of Session. Those who are familiar with the facts will know

    1351
    that some eighty-six cases altogether were concerned, because the Land Court would not agree to having a test case. Very important principles were concerned. A whole year has been lost—taken up, I should say, because, undoubtedly, some of the cases would take up a reasonable time. I think that is another good instance of the kind of thing which increases the congestion in the Land Court and causes delay and a great deal of heart-burning amongst the applicants, a great many of whom are waiting now. If any suggestion that we can make to-day whether from these or the opposite benches will save that delay, I trust it will be welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think will certainly justify our putting this Vote down as the first Vote for discussion.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: The points which have been raised seem to me, in the first place, to suggest that the rents have been lowered in too many eases and to too great an extent. I was amazed to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken speak of the reductions of rent being only too numerous, as far as he could judge. Anyone familiar with the rents which still prevail in many parts of Scotland will be very much surprised at the last statement—that is, if he has the interests of the people at heart. I observed, too, that the hon. Baronet who spoke first made various observations about rents, and put forward what, to my mind, was rather a new theory. His complaint seemed to be that although prices of farm produce have rather gone up in recent years, that rents have nevertheless been reduced. I would like to point out—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: May I remind the hon. Member that I was dealing entirely with the question of rents fixed by the Crofters' Commission and revised by the Land Court; not with rents as fixed first by the Land Court.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I understood the hon. Member to deal with both cases.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: No. I dealt with one; I only mentioned the other.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I quite agree with the hon. Baronet's suggestion, and he knows I wish to do him justice, but in this particular instance, when you take the case of rent fixed some years back, it is lower now and why not in future, if the justice of the case requires it? I do not
    1352
    see what the price of produce has to do with it. The hon. Baronet must remember that this produce is grown, not for the market, but for the use of the people themselves, and in some cases with the increased price of the produce there has been an increase in the price of the things necessary to grow that produce, and we must remember that these rents as they stand are often far higher when compared with other parts of the island. I venture to say if you go round the small land holders of Scotland and compare the land in their areas with other areas in quantity and quality, you will find the small land holder's position far more inferior and that his rates are on a far higher valuation than the others are.
    Another observation made was that you should not value the land in winter, but when the crops are in the ground. If that was made universal we would be told that these crops were not the result of the natural fertility of the land, but of the money and the improvements which in many cases the landlord has made. That is the very thing brought up against the procedure under another Act with which the hon. Baronet is familiar. I say the valuation must be made fairly all the year round if you are to get the work through. So far as the suggestion goes that the reasons ought to be given for these decisions, if the Court were to be made to give reasons for fixing certain rents on certain property in every case the labour would be far greater. The only way the Land Court can act is to deal with a case fairly upon its merits, and that is what they seem to me to be doing. As to the distinction between a fair and an equitable rent, it seems to be a distinction of words rather than of fact. I believe the word "equitable" was put into the Act in order that we might conceal in that some supposed technical significance of a fair rent, but the real distinction between equitable and fair rent is too fine a distinction for anyone to master.
    The work which the Land Court is doing is very important. We regret it is not able to get through more work, but it seems to me that that work in many cases is very difficult. If the Land Court was strengthened, as was proposed by a Bill in the present Session, then the Land Court would be able to undertake its work better, and to visit more parts of the country than it has been able to do up to the present. It does seem to me that the charges made against the Land Court are

    1353
    not justified. I am afraid the position of the Land Court possibly may be weakened by Debates in this House carried on on wrong lines. I wish hon. Members opposite criticising the Land Court for not giving its decision in detail might apply the same principle to arbitrators, who give such high awards in various cases.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I wish to call attention to the amount of money we are asked to vote in these Estimates. There is no doubt that we were all filled with righteousness in this House, and that we were doing immense good to the small tenants in Scotland. We were urged to believe that this Act meant the opening up of a new state of matters. I do not profess to know the details of the administration of this Court, but I wish to ask the attention of the Committee to the amount of money we are asked to vote. We are asked to vote £10,000, and, in addition to that, several other expenses; there is, for instance, £7,575, which this Land Court involves, making a total sum of something like £17,500. I wish to draw a lesson from this Vote for new legislation with regard to land, which we were promised was to bring such copious benefits to the small holders. I turn to the money value of the Land Court. I find that they have established small holders in several counties, in the aggregate somewhat considerable, but I take them in the prosaic order of their money value, and I find on page 31 of the Report they amount in annual value to £3,800, and I turn to the great benefits which were to flow so copiously to the small tenants of Scotland from this Land Court in the way of reductions of rent that have been wrung out of the hard pressed tenancy by grinding, exorbitant and tyrannical landlords. I am not a tenant and I am not a landlord, and I speak with absolute impartiality. What are the reductions affected by the Land Court in Scotland. Last year they amounted to a little over £1,100, and the total, therefore, is £5,300. Add to that the value of the new holdings and you get about £10,000, and at what cost to the nation and to the taxpayers among whom those small tenants are? At a cost of exactly £34,000.
    If I had been a small tenant in Scotland I am sure I would prefer my share of the £34,000 rather than a share of the £10,000 which is the total value of the reductions produced by this Land Court together with the value of the small holdings that they have created. I would much rather
    1354
    have my share of a sum which is three times greater than the amount of the reductions and the cost of the new small holdings created. Is it not possible that for this we may learn a rather sarcastic lesson as to the value of this much vaunted legislation? As an impartial person who is neither a landlord nor a tenant, but representative of the taxpayers of this country, I as one of these taxpayers would rather have my share of the £34,000 to which I have contributed, which would mean a much more generous distribution for the small holders of Scotland than the £10,000 that has been the result of an expenditure of £34,000, because of this precious land reform. It is in that sense, and as a Member of this Committee voting the money of the taxpayers, that I protest that nothing like an adequate return is given, and it is on those grounds that I venture to make my criticism.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I venture to think that in Scotland there are many who do not share the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The money expended in connection with the working of the Land Court has undoubtedly led to great results in Scotland, and we look for still greater results in the time to come, because the Court at the present moment is unable through congestion to accomplish the work that lies upon it. I am glad to find that the attitude of hon. Members opposite to-day is somewhat changed as shown by their criticism of the Land Court. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs was actually prepared to-day to commend the methods of the Land Courts.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I said they had improved.
    Mr. MILLAR: I am glad to hear that the hon. Baronet says that the methods have improved. I should like to reply in a word to the two or three matters of criticism which he put forward, and on which I submit he had no great strength of argument behind him. In the first place, he referred to the fact that the Land Court had referred in their Report to cases submitted to the Court of Session and the success attending them. Surely that is one answer to the argument he put forward that the Land Court should give information as to the way they act in the cases decided, and the points of law raised. I do not see why he should complain that that appears in the Report.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not complaining.
    Mr. MILLAR: Then he referred to the fact that two out of eight cases have been reversed, and referred to that as severe falls for the Land Court. I would like to remind him that to have only two out of eight cases reversed is an extremely good record for any Court, and compares very favourably with the record of the Court of Session in that respect. If you take the judicial statistics for 1912, you will find that out of nine appeals from the Court of Session, four were reversed and five were affirmed by the House of Lords.
    Mr. WATSON: It is not on a case stated on which an appeal is taken, but where the merits were gone into.
    Mr. MILLAR: The point I venture to make, and which is a fair one, is that any Court subject to review as the Court of Session is subject to review by the House of Lords, may have its decisions overturned, and that the average of decisions reversed is much higher in the case of the Court of Session than in the case of the Land Court. The hon. Baronet made a great point with regard to the failure of the Land Court to give the principles upon which they proceeded in reducing the amount of the rents. I venture to say I never heard a more absurd contention than to suggest that the Land Court, which is carrying out principles which are clearly laid down for it on the face of the Statute, should embody these in its Report. It is the very last thing one would expect to find in the Report of the Land Court, for the simple reason that these principles are well established and laid down within the Statute itself. The hon. Baronet will remember the conditions under which both a fair and equitable rent was to be fixed. In the case of an equitable rent the Land Court is directed to act,
    "so far as practicable, upon their own knowledge and experience."
    I am sure the hon. Baronet will admit that the members of the Land Court are men of knowledge and experience in agricultural affairs. He is aware that they are men who have knowledge and experience of farming and factoring, and who are chosen for that purpose. They are also
    "directed to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, including the rent at which the holding has been
    1356
    let, the proposed conditions of the renewed tenancy, the improvements made by the landlord and tenant respectively, and the then condition and value of such improvements; and shall fix as the rent to be paid by the tenant the rent which, in their opinion, would be an equitable rent for the holding between the landlord and the tenant as a willing lessor and a willing lessee."
    That is the principle and the only principle upon which the Land Court are to proceed in fixing these rents. It can hardly be suggested that there is much difference in the case of the fair rents fixed under the Crofters' Holdings Act, because there, again, after hearing the parties the Court have to consider all the circumstances of the case; and take into account any permanent or unexhausted improvements executed or paid for by the landholder or his predecessors, and then determine the fair rent and pronounce the order. Does the hon. Baronet suggest that the Land Court should put on paper all the circumstances and the various considerations which enter into the fixing of a particular rent? Surely it is absurd to suggest that there is any underlying principle beyond the one stated in the Act which could apply or that it would be possible to set forth all the circumstances of each case which have to be considered in turn!
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I was particular to state that they could not go into the details. I said that I wanted to know the general principle upon which they were reducing rents.
    Mr. MILLAR: I think the hon. Baronet has misapprehended the position. In many cases the rent was first fixed upon a consideration of the conditions attaching to the buildings, and when you have reached the later period and seven years have elapsed, and improvements have been made by the holders themselves, these are absolutely excluded from the consideration.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: They were all excluded in those cases, and it is a pure case of land value.
    Mr. MILLAR: Building values considerations did enter into account.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Not at all.
    Mr. MILLAR: The Crofters' Commission were in a difficult position in reducing the rents to a satisfactory

    1357
    figure at one step. They were in many cases excessive, and there were rents which should have been reduced to a much larger extent. If those rents are compared to-day with the rents of adjoining land it would be found that the Land Court has acted with perfect fairness throughout in reducing them to the figure which it has now done. The Report is a document which I think will be read with very great satisfaction throughout the whole of Scotland, because it shows that at last Scotland is in a position to secure what is truly a fair rent in the case of these small land holders. When it is suggested that this tribunal has acted upon its own principles, I would point out that it is acting upon the principles laid down by the Act, and interpreted by a triburial which is just as likely to be fair and correct in its dealings with the cases which come before it as the older tribunal which had to deal with these cases under different circumstances. I submit that the Scottish Land Court Report is one which shows evidence of extraordinary industry on the part of the Land Court. Their time has been very fully occupied, and they have had to deal with an enormous amount of work in connection with the office duties in Edinburgh and inspections throughout the country. The Court has sometimes to sit in four different divisions. The hon. Baronet has referred to the fact that assessors have on a number of occasions sat along with the members of the Court. The hon. Baronet made a suggestion which I do not think will be well received in Scotland, namely, that a sheriff sitting with an assessor would be a much more suitable Court.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I said two assessors.
    Mr. MILLAR: The Land Court has assessors and valuers, and it is a better judge of what ought to be done, having regard to the fact that, with one exception, the members of the Court are not lawyers, but men who have acquaintance with farming and agricultural pursuits. To suggest that a sheriff would be in a better position to deal with such questions than a man who has a practical knowledge of agriculture is something which will not approve itself to the good sense of the people of Scotland. I think the Land Courts are to be congratulated upon the splendid work they have done, and I hope they will get more sympathy and consideration from hon. Members opposite. I have no doubt that their work is often of a
    1358
    very difficult character, but I think if they were allowed a fairer measure of credit for their motives in seeking the best interests of the people of Scotland their work would be accomplished with even greater success.
    Mr. CURRIE: Hon. Members opposite have attacked the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs for his criticisms upon the Land Court, but I do not think those criticisms were one whit too strong. One often hears in Scotland in unexpected quarters criticisms of this Court compared with which anything that has been said this afternoon is very mild indeed. I think the general view is that the proceedings of the Land Court have been very much at variance with what was expected when the Court was first set up. Whatever may be thought of the financial provisions of the Act, I am sure all parties are anxious that the proceedings of the Court should be regarded by the public with confidence. I am not allowed to make reference to any of the influences under which the Court may have fallen, and I do not propose to do so, but it is a matter of common knowledge that the delays which take place in the Court are in themselves sufficient to largely discredit it. One hears many complaints of the way in which evidence is dealt with, and the methods of inspection which are authorised by the Court. Above all, the Court has been discredited to a great extent by the way in which its judgments have been handled by the Court of-Session. It appears, to me most unfortunate that the process of establishing small holdings, which we all wish to see furthered, has been delayed by the way the Land Court has carried on its work. We have heard it said that the difference between one side of the Committee and the other was, "We trust the Land Court and you do not." That remark expresses how opinion is divided. But assuming that half of the people have entire confidence in the Land Court, what a position that is for any Court charged with important public duties to occupy. The mere fact that any large section of the community regards the operations of this Court with lack of confidence is quite enough to take away from it its real usefulness. The Land Court was given the status of a Law Court, but it does not command the respect of a Law Court, and if the respect paid to it is less than the respect paid to Court of Session, all I can say is that the fault lies not with the people but with the Court itself.

    1359
    I know that the Secretary for Scotland disclaims any control over this Court, but at the same time he has very great influence with it; and I hope he will lose no opportunity which may present itself of getting the Land Court in the future to carry out its important duties with more reference to considerations which habitually weigh with other Courts in Scotland. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the operations of the Land Court have given a very modified satisfaction to a great many hon. Members who sit behind him. We have heard that view expressed upstairs with the greatest possible freedom. I confess that I was rather amazed at some of the criticisms made from the other side of the Committee this afternoon. What is wanted is not that lengthy reasons should be given when judgments are come to, but that leading principles should be laid down. If that were done future cases would be very much more easily handled. It has been suggested that the arbiters do not give reasons, but that is not really in accordance with the facts. The arbiters have, as a matter of fact, given their reasons; they have given them shortly, and they can be understood and applied in other cases. That is what is wanted, and nobody wants lengthy reasons in connection with a judgment. The statement has been made by hon. Members opposite that all the members of this Court are experienced in matters connected with agriculture. I should not be in order in commenting on that statement, which I regard as inaccurate, but if I were in order I should ask for further information, because in one respect that statement is certainly news to me. The expenses associated with the work of the Land Court strikes most people as simply disgraceful. The ordinary taxpayer regrets that between three and four times the amount of rent reduction is spent in the process, and the way the members travel all over the country in motor cars is perfectly unnecessary, or, I should say, has been done in a way that is perfectly unnecessary. It would have been far cheaper to throw 40 or 50 per cent. of the money which has been thus spent into the sea and spend the rest on doing something useful.
    Mr. MORTON: I notice that the opposition to the Land Court to-day is very slight compared with what it was last year and the year before. I take it from that
    1360
    fact that hon. Members opposite are bearing in mind that a General Election is coming on, and they dare not abuse the work of the Land Court. Hon. Members opposite have not shown us a solitary item where it can be said that we are overpaying anybody for their work in connection: with this Court, and a mere general statement of that kind has not much value. From what I know personally, I can state that most of the work done in Scotland in regard to this administration is not overpaid. Therefore I do not desire to take any notice of a mere bald statement of this kind, unless hon. Members can give some proof that somebody has been overpaid, or that somebody has been paid who has not done any work. It is the duty of Parliament to find officials and pay them to carry out in the proper way the Acts of Parliament which we may pass. What I should like to do is to strengthen this Land Court. No doubt there is a very strong feeling in Scotland that more must be done to settle the land question in the interests of the people of Scotland. I do not think anybody can make any complaint against the work of the Land Court, whatever complaint they may make against other bodies. I am certain that you will not find the people of Scotland back you up, simply because you want to decry and damage the Land Court in dealing with the question of the settlement of the land problem in Scotland. I am perfectly certain that this all comes from the landlord interest. I am quite willing that the landlord should be paid a fair rent, as long as the tenants have fixity of tenure, but I am not willing that they should be paid excessive rents because it may be in accordance with their politics. We want the land question settled in the interests of the people. That is what the Land Court is doing. It is trying to prevent that depopulation which has been going on to such a serious extent in Scotland.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Before my right hon. Friend replies, I should like to ask him a question with regard to an item on page 79, which deals with the wages and allowances paid to certain officials. How many hours do the charwomen work who are paid 8s. per week? If they are anything like the hours worked in the English offices, they must be getting a, very small remuneration for the work they do. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members opposite will be complaining that a vast amount of money has been

    1361
    expended this afternoon on useless work, but I think that they will be quite willing to give these servants an increase in their wages. I understand that the practice is for them to work so many hours in the morning and at night, but if it is only a couple of hours each morning, it is less than one shilling a day. I should like to hear what are the duties of these women who are receiving this pittance of 8s. per week.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): If my hon. Friend had given me notice of his question, I would have made inquiries of the Land Court. I know that the charwomen only work part-time, but I do not know how many hours they work. This is a peculiar Debate, for, while it is possible for everybody to criticise or defend the Land Court, the Land Court itself is in the unfortunate position of having nobody to answer for it. That arises from the deliberate decision and intention of Parliament. Parliament set up this Land Court in order that it might be an entirely independent and impartial tribunal to consider cases which the Board of Agriculture placed before it. Questions have been asked me as to the procedure of the Court, suggesting that some directions have been given to the Court, and to-day, in the course of the Debate, one hon. Member opposite suggested that I should give them a hint, and another hon. Gentleman suggested that I should use my influence for a particular purpose. I consider that either to give a hint to the Land Court or to use any influence for a particular purpose would be entirely outside my duty. This Court has to consider, first of all, the cases that are brought before it by the tenants who are interested in having a fair rent fixed; and, in the next place, they have to consider the proposals of the Board of Agriculture, which have to be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland. I do represent in a way and am answerable for the Board of Agriculture, which is one of the principal litigants—in fact, the principal litigant—before the Land Court.
    My relations with the Land Court therefore have been simply that it is an independent tribunal as much beyond my control as the Court of Session. I have not interfered with it, and I have not thought it right to ask it the principles on which it proceeds, or to give it any hint, or to use any influence with it. The only time that I have had a discussion with the members of the Land Court was when I
    1362
    discussed with them a question of mere machinery, and asked them whether they had any suggestion to make which would expedite proceedings in view of the legislation which was contemplated at that time—an Amendment of the Small Landholders Bill. One proposal arose from that discussion, and is included in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, which is now before the House, namely, that we should alter the quorum of the Court and increase the number of its members. That is the only subject I have discussed with the Land. Court, and I am sure that the House will agree that it was a very proper discussion. That is the position; and, therefore, as much as I might desire to explain the principles on which they do their business, I am unable to do so, and I do not care to ask them for those principles. I do not propose, therefore, to do mre than to say a few words on the various topics which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    I quite agree with the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Watson) that it would have been very desirable if we could have had a number of decisions of the Land Court, laying down principles, which would have been understood by landlords on the one side and tenants on the other side, as well as by the Board of Agriculture, and which would have facilitated proceedings for the creation of small holdings by agreement. What is the reason we have not had these principles laid down? The reason is that the landlords and factors have always appealed past the Land Court to arbitration. That is a great misfortune, but it is not the fault of the Land Court. If it had been allowed to complete the cases, not merely deciding whether the scheme should be approved and what fair rents should be fixed for the tenants, but going on and deciding what compensation should be paid, we should have had many of these completed cases, but, unfortunately, the view taken by those representing the landlords' interests in Scotland has been that they had better go to arbitration, and really I do not blame them. It has paid them uncommonly well. They have, therefore, withdrawn from the Land Court the opportunity of laying down those principles, which, if they had been laid down, might have saved the public purse much money and the Board of Agriculture a great deal of trouble, and might have tended to the facilitation

    1363
    of the process of creating small holdings by agreement, which is what I look forward to most of all. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Currie), who, perhaps, made the most captious and querulous speech this afternoon, complained of delay. I do not think that the Land Court can be complained of for neglecting its work. I notice in one of the paragraphs that they refer to their work during the past year, and say:—
    "In order to illustrate its varied and expensive character, we may state that we visited nearly every county ill Scotland, from Wigton in the South, to Shetland in the far North, and conducted inquiries therein."
    I know it is the view of the Land Court that it is desirable they should go to different parts of the country, rather than remain, in a manner much more convenient to them personally, in Edinburgh, and save themselves a great deal of fatigue. Their view is that they ought to go to these places, in order to make it easier for the tenants who are poor people to appear before them, and in order that they should facilitate business in the interests of the litigants. You must not forget that the great cause of delay has been the very hostile position which has been taken by many landlords and factors to the creation of small holdings. They have used very strong language about it, and they have opposed the procedure of the Board of Agriculture at nearly every stage. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) said that he thought they ought to employ assessors. I have observed from the reports which have appeared in the newspapers of the proceedings of the Land Court in different parts of Scotland that they have adopted that suggestion and that members have been sitting in various parts of Scotland.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: My point really was that it was taking away those individual members from the work of speeding up the work of the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr McKINNON WOOD: I do not think that you can constitute a Court without one member. You could not constitute it with assessors. The Court thinks that it ought to sit in different parts of Scotland in the interests of the litigants. A point was raised by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs which is also raised in the Report. He spoke about the distinction between an equitable and a fair rent. The Report says that the average man
    1364
    does not understand the distinction, and I think that is quite true. The hon. Member said that was a phrase and a distinction which was struck out in the course of the famous bargain of which we have heard so much in praise and censure during the past few months. I can only say I regret, when dealing with the matter, that he did not favour us with an explanation of the distinction.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I thought I did.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Did you? Unfortunately I am of average intellect and it did not penetrate through my stupidity. I listened to the hon. Baronet very carefully, but I did not hear anything which to my humble intelligence appeared to approach an explanation of the difference between an equitable and a fair rent. I think I have explained why it is impossible for me to say anything more on these questions. One subject of criticism has been that the rents have been fixed too low. That obviously must depend upon the circumstances of each case, and I am not in a position and have not the information to deal with these particular cases. The Board of Agriculture, of course, is a body with which, although it has an independent existence, I have much greater relation, and for which I have much greater responsibility, and I suppose the Committee will now pass from the Land Court and deal with the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Everybody who had anything to do with the Small Landholders Act of 1911 knows that it was the result of combined and joint co-operation between the two parties, one giving up something and the other giving up some-ting, in order to arrive at a measure which we could get through. There was great satisfaction at that time on the part of the Members of the House who represented the Government that they were able to get the Bill through.
    Mr. MORTON: They never agreed to the compromise.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: They do not like it now, but they did agree to it, and the terms were proposed by those who were responsible Ministers of the Government representing Scotland at the time.
    Mr. MORTON: It was never submitted to the Liberal Scottish Members.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I do not know what happened with regard to the Liberal Scottish Members, but it was submitted to the Committee, and the Liberal Scottish Members con amore supported it. Therefore, to suggest that it is an Act which we regard with hostility is to make a suggestion absolutely devoid of foundation. But that is only by the way. I do not desire to stand here as criticising the honesty or fairness of the Land Court. I know there have been criticisms in that direction, and I regret it exceedingly. But I fail to see how it is that a Court which has so much power should have in the result, rightly or wrongly, brought about a feeling that there is a want of confidence on the part of a very large number who came before it as to the way in which its proceedings are carried on. I do not desire to associate myself with that feeling, but it is a misfortune that it should, as it undoubtedly does, exist, and that such a view should be given expression to publicly. It is a great misfortune, particularly in a case of this kind. There is nothing more unfortunate than the speeches that are made, and the articles which are written from time to time, presenting the Scottish landlords as not in sympathy with their poorer or richer tenants, because, if the history of Scottish agriculture is looked at, it will be found that the Scottish landlords have done their part very well in developing Scottish agriculture, which would never have occupied the position it does to-day had it not been for their efforts and expenditure.
    I confess I do not understand some of the observations made about the Land Court. There are two main branches of its work, first, the revising of rents, and secondly, the setting up of small holdings. So far as the revising of rents is concerned, that is a matter entirely in the hands of the Land Court, and there is no appeal from that Court at all. But what I think is quite reasonably desired is that the Land Court should explain the general principles upon which it proceeds in reducing rents. It would tend to a large extent to diminish the work before the Court, if a definite expression were given of the principles upon which they proceed. I am not criticising their revisions, or attempting to say whether they are just or unjust. Nobody knows the grounds upon which they proceed, but I do suggest that if the principles were
    1366
    explained, the landlords, when a deduction of rent was claimed, would be better able to appreciate whether the claim was founded upon principles already approved by the Land Court, and they would then know whether there was any need to contest the claim, and in the result the congestion in the Land Court would be lessened. One cannot but regard with great dissatisfaction the fact that at the end of the period covered by their second Report apparently only about 300 new small holdings have been created. There has been a very large expense which seems quite insufficiently accounted for by the number of small holdings created. I am bound to say I have no personal knowledge in this matter, but I understand a great deal of objection is taken on this ground that the Land Court puts forward a scheme for creating a certain number of small holdings, and when the scheme is worked out, and the rent charges ascertained, it is found impossible to get applicants to press on with their applications. I admit it is difficult to forecast the ultimate result of a scheme, but I do suggest there is a lack of administrative detail evident when these schemes are put forward.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Land Court does not present the scheme.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Oh, it is the Board of Agriculture. I will pass from that point, as it is outside the present Vote. But I cannot help thinking that the expenditure for which the Land Court is responsible is out of all proportion to the number of small holdings that have been created, and accordingly the work of the Land Court is not all that can be desired. In saying that I have in view the fact that so far as the Act of 1911 is concerned, it is a joint Act. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire shakes his head, but that does not alter the fact. I hope the discussion we have had to-day may result in an alteration being made in connection with the Land Court which will facilitate its procedure, and also diminish its expenditure.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.— (Class II.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £221,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the

    1367
    sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland." [Note.—£23,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There are only two points I desire to raise on this Vote, one concerns agricultural education and the other concerns afforestation. One of the most important duties which this Board took over was that of prosecuting schemes for agricultural education. The experience of other countries which have attempted and which have successfully carried out large schemes of land development, and of settling large numbers of small holders on the land, shows conclusively that in order that these schemes of settlement and development should be carried out with the fullest success, there should be a systematic and thorough attempt to give to small holders and small farmers and others engaged on the land the full advantages of scientific information and expert training regarding how to make the best use of the land. In the scheme of agricultural education which was taken over by the Board, and which was inherited from the Education Department, I think I may say that the education which was given in Scotland consisted of two kinds. First of all, there were the agricultural courses given by the three agricultural colleges at the universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen—courses which were of a higher and advanced nature, which were designed for those who could afford to take some expensive courses, and designed also for the training of experts and teachers. That was supplemented by a general and more elementary education designed to reach people actually working on the land. This more general elementary education was administered from the colleges. The country was mapped out into three divisions, one attached to each college, and this education was conveyed by means of lecturers and instructors sent out from the colleges to deliver courses of lectures and to conduct demonstrations on various subjects connected with agriculture, and with the working of small holdings.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I have described the two branches of the organisation for imparting agricultural education which existed in Scotland and were taken over by the Board of Agriculture—the higher one at the colleges, courses for the training of experts and teachers, and the other, more elementary, conveyed by means of lecturers and demonstrators sent out from the colleges to the counties to give demonstrations on such subjects as butter making, poultry keeping, beekeeping, rural household economy, and the farming industry in general. I do not want to touch now upon the various developments with regard to the university courses, or with regard to the education which was conveyed by means of lecturers and demonstrators in the counties. But I want to refer to what was described in the first Report of the Board of Agriculture as a most urgent and pressing need—namely, that there should be some system of agricultural education intermediate between the two which I have described—some course of agricultural instruction and training which would be of a more elaborate nature than that provided by the lecturers and demonstrators and which would be available for the sons and daughters of small holders and farmers, and even for small holders themselves who felt the need for further information and further training, but who were quite unable, for various reasons, to take the longer courses which were provided by the university.
    In its first Report the Board indicated its belief that the provision of such a system of intermediate agricultural education was an urgent necessity, and I believe a scheme was prepared for the purpose of supplying this education. It has been looked forward to with great interest by many of those who are engaged in agriculture in Scotland, and who are expecting to benefit by it, but I regret to say that when I look at the second annual Report of the Board, the one which has been issued this year, no further progress seems to have been made with it. It is there stated that the Board of Agriculture has consulted with the Education Department, and has drawn up a scheme for the establishment of a system of intermediate agricultural education, and that this scheme has been submitted to the Development Commissioners by the Department. That is a point upon which I should like to ask for information and I invite the special attention of the

    1369
    Secretary of Scotland to it. This scheme for intermediate education was drawn up by the Board of Agriculture in consultation with the Department, and it is stated it was submitted to the Development Commissioners not by the Board of Agriculture, but by the Education Department. I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could explain what was the reason why the scheme was submitted to the Commissioners by the Department which was not responsible and not by the Board which was responsible for the matter. I have no doubt there is some good and sound reason for it, but on the surface it looks as if it requires axplanation. The main point I wish to raise is that, although two years have passed, nothing whatever seems to have been done in the matter beyond preparing the scheme and submitting it to the Development Commissioners. I want to know why the Development Commissioners have done nothing to meet the proposals of the Board in this matter. They have already done a considerable amount in this connection in England. In the Report of the Development Commissioners I find the strongest emphasis laid upon the necessity of having some such scheme of intermediate agricultural education. In their Report for the year ending 31st March, 1912, the Development Commissioners described the existing organisation in England for agricultural teaching and colleges and for research work, and proceeded to say:—
    "But this system provides only for part of the work to be done. It would be obviously and grossly incomplete without a considerable extension of a simpler and more immediately practical type of agricultural education, and a considerable addition to the existing provision of help and advice of a less purely scientific kind."
    They recommended that in England farm institutes should be established for the training of small holders and those engaged in agriculture. Two years ago the Development Commissioners sanctioned a Grant of £325, spread over four years, to be expended in England.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was £325,000.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I thank my right hon. Friend for that correction. The Development Commissioners sanctioned that expenditure in England for farms and intermediate education of the very kind which two years ago the Board of Agriculture in Scotland described as being urgently required in Scotland. If it was possible in England to obtain a Grant
    1370
    from the Development Commissioners two years ago for this very necessary provision, I want to know why a similar Grant has not been obtained, what efforts have been made to secure the Grant, and whether there is, as there seems to be, any obstacle in the way of getting this Grant for Scotland from the Development Commissioners. The other point I wish to raise concerns the long delay in making any progress with afforestation in Scotland. From the point of view of the economic interests of Scotland, of the development of the resources of Scotland, and of largely increasing the number of people who are settled on the soil in Scotland, there can be no subject more important than that of afforestation. It is an important subject in England and in Ireland also, but it is infinitely more important in Scotland than it is or ever can be in either England or Ireland. I need only give three figures to prove that conclusively. In Scotland we have 6,000,000 acres of land which could be more profitably used for afforestation than they are being used or can be used for any other purpose. In England, instead of 6,000,000 acres, there are only 2,500,000 acres; and in Ireland only 500,000 acres which can be so described. If you take these three figures, you find that they work out at the proportions of 34 per cent. of the soil of Scotland, 7 per cent. of the soil of England, and only 2 per cent. of the soil of Ireland.
    These figures, which are based upon the reports of inquiries officially conducted, and which have never, so far as I know, been controverted, show that more than one-third of the total surface of the land in Scotland could be more profitably used for the purpose of afforestation than it is being used at present, or could be used for any other purpose. I am not referring to land which is suitable for small holdings or to arable land. I am referring to land which is at present devoted to sport or to poor grazing, or which is of a kind which might be classed as the very poorest tillage. It all lies below the 1,000 feet level. It does not consist of "barren hilltops," such as my Noble Friend the Member for West Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine) displayed when he took some innocent investigators into his Highland demense. It is land which, according to the best reports that are available, could be profitably used for afforestation. In addition to that, we have conclusive evidence from the experience of other countries that afforestation is one of the best and most effective means of settling

    1371
    a large population on the soil. It fits admirably into a scheme for increasing small holdings. There are many parts of Scotland in which small holdings cannot be profitably conducted without some auxiliary industry and in which no auxiliary industry is available at the present time. The industry of afforestation would supply exactly the kind of auxiliary industry which is wanted and which has been adapted most successfully in Germany to a large and extensive scheme of small holdings. The small holders work in the forests in the winter, when their labour is most required, and work on their own holdings in the spring and summer. I am not going to discuss the work of the Development Commissioners, but they hold the money which it is the duty of our Board of Agriculture to obtain for afforestation development. It is five years ago since the Development Commissioners were appointed. One of their chief duties, as laid down at the time of their appointment, was to encourage and promote the development of afforestation in this country. It is three years ago since the Board of Agriculture was appointed, and one of its duties was described in the Act creating it to be:—
    "To promote the interests of agriculture, forestry, and other rural industries in Scotland."
    Both the Development Commissioners and the Board of Agriculture had the direct duty laid upon them of promoting forestry development in this country, yet during all the time since their appointment nothing of a practical nature has been done in Scotland. We see a very different picture when we look to England or to Ireland. In England, where the proportion of land which is suitable for afforestation is only seven per cent. of the total surface of the land, and in Ireland, where the total surface of the land suitable for afforestation is only two per cent., large grants have been obtained from the Development Commissioners for forestry development, and schemes of development are now in active operation, whereas in Scotland, where thirty-four per cent. of the land is suitable for afforestation and can be used better for that purpose than any other purpose, we have obtained practically nothing at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question!"] I do not think that can be questioned, we have obtained practically nothing from the Development Commissioners.
    Mr. MOLTENOmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I understand that one of my Scottish colleagues questions whether a large proportion of the 6,000,000 acres of land in Scotland to which I have referred is better suited for afforestation than for any other purpose. I can only refer him to the Reports of the various Afforestation Committees which have been appointed to inquire into this matter and to the Royal Commission. The figures which I gave were contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, and the opinion which I expressed, that this land was better suited for afforestation than for any other purpose, was also contained in that Report. I do not profess to be an expert in these matters. I take my opinion from the experts, and an hon. Member who sits behind me, who is a member of the Advisory Committee in Scotland, will perhaps deal with that point when he comes to speak. I believe there is the amount of land I have described. We have as yet obtained no grants of money for this vital purpose in Scotland. I ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps have been taken by the Board, in pursuit of its duty, to secure the development of afforestation in Scotland? Has it pressed this matter upon the Development Commissioners; is it using its full influence with the Development Commissioners; and how is it, although an Advisory Committee consisting of experts, and having the advice of experts has been appointed in Scotland, and although this Committee recommended a considerable time ago a definite scheme, that nothing has been done to proceed with the scheme?
    Finally, numerous complaints have been heard from Scottish Members as to the enormous sums which are being granted out of the funds of the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of paying compensation to landlords for the constitution on their lands of small holdings under the Act. I think the amounts which have been granted in the way of compensation can only be described as staggering. I do not want to use offensive terms, so I will limit myself to saying that this compensation seems to be more in the nature of a tribute or a ransom for the purpose of settling the people on the land than a matter of actual compensation for actual loss inflicted. We find that large sums of money—thousands of pounds—are being granted

    1373
    to landlords who, as the result of the constitution of small holdings on their land, are receiving now a larger income from their land than they were receiving before. They are, in fact, receiving compensation for receiving a larger income from their land. I, as a Scottish Member, cannot look with equanimity upon the funds which are at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture being expended in this way. These small holdings which are being created at such an enormous price in the matter of compensation are not economic. They will never earn dividends in any sense of the word upon the capital which is being sunk in creating them. This money is being absolutely thrown away; it is not securing any effective development of the resources of Scotland comparable to the amount of money which is being expended. If the funds of the Board are to be liable in the future to be simply transferred into the pockets of the landlords in this way, I think a much more effective way of increasing the number of small holdings would be to devote part of the money, at least, to the promotion of schemes of afforestation and schemes of small holdings in connection with them. Infinitely better would it be that the Board of Agriculture should purchase the land outright or should itself become the tenant, possibly the compulsory tenant, of the whole estate and establish in connection therewith a scheme of afforestation, and in connection with that a scheme of land settlement, than to throw the money away, as at present, in the form of doles to landlords.
    Major HOPE: I cordially agree with what the hon. Member has said about afforestation in Scotland, but at the end of his speech he went off on the old familiar tack of landlords and the whole subject of compensation. I suppose he was referring to excessive compensation in two particular cases. Both these landowners, so far from making more money out of the compensation, would only have been too thankful if the scheme of small holdings had never been proceeded with. The whole trouble about the compensation is because the Board of Agriculture refuses to take advice as to land which they could get cheaply. The whole of the energies of the Board of Agriculture have been in the main devoted to the constitution of small holdings. I quite agree, as we all do on this side of the House, that that is a most desirable object, the planting down of small holders on the land, always provided that they are suitable and that they
    1374
    are placed in a position where they have a reasonable chance of prospering and earning a decent living. But that is not the only object of the Board of Agriculture, and it seems to me that, owing no doubt to pressure—some of it, I think, political—which is put upon the Board of Agriculture to make a big show of creating new small holdings, the Board of Agriculture is apt to neglect their other duties. Afforestation is a case in point. But these are not the only duties of the Board of Agriculture. I notice that for all the other purposes of the Board of Agriculture, excluding small holdings—the improvement of live stock, agricultural education, and the protection of agricultural produce from agricultural disease and such like—the whole amount spent in the last year for which figures are available is £11,712 out of a total of £212,000, which is the total income of the Board. That seems to compare rather unfavourably with the £22,500 which was spent in the same year for the staff expenses, and the £38,000 which has been spent this year on the staff expenses.
    Little effort and no money is being spent in the attempt to eradicate disease to which agricultural produce is subject. It may seem a small matter, but I should like to refer first of all to wart disease in potatoes. I referred to that last year, and it is a difficulty which particularly affects cottagers and agricultural labourers who augment their income by growing potatoes in their gardens. This disease has been spreading in Scotland. The Board of Agriculture report that there was a serious outbreak in Ayrshire during the last year. It is true, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that more stringent Orders have recently been pronounced for dealing with this disease, but, on the other hand, no money has been provided to compensate those cottagers, on whom the burden of complying with the Order falls, for the tubers which have to be destroyed, or in cases where it is forbidden to replant the ground with potatoes. Consequently, of course, the Order, in common fairness, is not generally applied, and I suggest that a little money spent in providing compensation for those on whom the burden of this Order falls would enable the Order to be more stringently enforced and might eradicate the disease in Scottish potatoes. The Report of the Board states that there has been absolutely in the last year no change in the restrictions under which Scottish potatoes are allowed to be exported to the Colonies. There is a total

    1375
    embargo on the export of Scottish potatoes to America. I submit that it is worth while to do something to totally eradicate the disease amongst Scottish potatoes.
    There is another disease which is affecting our Scottish produce, and that is the American gooseberry mildew. That is referred to in the Report, and I regret to say that the disease is gaining ground amongst gooseberry bushes, and also currant bushes. This, again, affects the cottagers, and all hon. Members, I am sure, want to assist them in every possible way. At the end of 1912 there were 324 cases in all. Last year there were 345 new outbreaks. I asked the Secretary for Scotland a question on the subject as to what steps were being taken to eradicate the disease and to inspect the fruit and to prevent diseased fruit infecting the other. He informed me that there was inspection in the early hours from time to time in Edinburgh Market, and that arrangements were being made to report the presence of diseased fruit, but it is not very satisfactory, and no effort is made, I imagine, to inspect fruit which is exposed in shops, and it cannot be. I should be the last to advocate a large increase of inspectors, but I gather that until recently there were only three agricultural inspectors under the Board. Now there are to be five. Their duties are many. They have to inspect potatoes and fruit bushes and to see that they are not getting American mildew, and they have visited some 700 butter and margarine manufactories and dealers. The inspecting staff of the Board of Agriculture is perhaps hardly sufficient to cope with these duties, but anyhow I suggest that some more serious steps should be taken in the interests of Scotch fruit-growers to deal with this American gooseberry mildew. There is another point in regard to that. I am told that the disease is also spread by the importation of diseased fruit from abroad. A good many gooseberries come in to Leith from Holland between May and July. I asked the Secretary for Scotland if he has taken any steps to prevent that. His reply was that he did not think there was any danger of fruit and vegetables spreading the disease and the efforts of the staff were therefore concentrated principally on the inspection of gardens. It is well known that diseased fruit comes in from Holland to Leith. Some of it is sent straight to dealers and not exposed on the market at all. The dealer gets his diseased fruit and puts it
    1376
    in baskets which are afterwards sent out to growers in the country on hire, and that is how the disease spreads. I suggest that the Secretary for Scotland might have regard to that point.
    I return to what is really no doubt the main work of the Board of Agriculture, that is the constitution of small holdings. I do not think they can congratulate themselves very much on the progress which has been made during the past year. In December, 1913, there were only 195 small holdings constituted and only 116 of these, according to the Report of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, were actually occupied. No doubt the Secretary for Scotland and the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) will give different reasons and will possibly refer to the difficulties of the 1911 Act, and we shall have the same speeches which were made upstairs on the Amending Bill. I may point out to hon. Members that even if the machinery is defective, there is still an opportunity for remedying some of the main defects if only the right hon. Gentleman will act upon the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason). It would be possible to pass a short agreed Bill, which would become law this Session and would enormously speed up the creation of small holdings. But I do not think, as a matter of fact, the Board of Agriculture make the most of the existing powers under the Act. We are not allowed to criticise the Scottish Land Court, but I think I shall be m order in reading the Scottish Land Court's criticism of the methods of the Board of Agriculture. They state at page xxx. that:
    "The preparation of such a large number of applications necessarily involves much labour, and not a few of the schemes show that they were prepared without sufficient consideration of details. …. We were much hampered in our work for the want of plans arising from this cause, and several large schemes which were ready for disposal at the end of the year had to be carried forward for want of receiving amended plans."
    The Scottish Land Court say that the Board of Agriculture do not give sufficient consideration to their schemes, and that when presented they have to be altered.
    Mr. HODGE: You do not believe in the Land Court.
    Major HOPE: I only say that the Land Court and the Board of Agriculture blame each other. The Land Court in this case is blaming the Board of Agriculture. I am not prepared to apportion the exact amount of blame as between these two

    1377
    bodies, but I say that the Board of Agriculture do not make the best use of the existing powers under the Act at present. One reason is that they do not sufficiently foresee the difficulties of the schemes which they propose. They do not take local advice on the matter. It would be far better, I think, in many cases to take a less suitable farm than the one they choose, if they can get possession of it. But the Board of Agriculture will take no advice, and they go on bald-headed with their own particular schemes.
    I will give another case in point, namely, the scheme for the formation of small holdings at Pentland Mains. It was stated that there were sixteen cottages, and that only eight farm labourers would be displaced. It was shown in evidence that other houses were occupied by dairymen and pig-feeders. Mr. Reid, one of the members of the Scottish Land Court, who heard the case, asked:—
    "What about the dairyman?.… You are displacing him."
    The Commissioners objected to the displacing of eight farm servants and the dairyman. Then the sub-Commissioner for small holdings, when examined, said he did not consider there would be any displacement of labour. He was not aware that Mr. Prestsell employed seventeen farm servants. When asked if he could not get another farm, he replied that, as a matter of fact, they were offered other two farms on the estate, but that when he examined them he did not think they were so suitable for small holdings as the one proposed. Now comes the important point. Mr. Reid stated:—
    "There is an instruction in the Act to look for land which the outgoing tenant does not desire to take. If you take what is most suitable to you, and do not look to what the tenant wants, you are ignoring that instruction."
    Later on Mr. Reid said:—
    "We are beginning to think you are neglecting the nstruction."
    I will not quote further. I only wish to point out that the Land Court are discovering that many of these schemes for small holdings were brought before the Court without due consideration, and that if a little more trouble had been taken suitable ground for small holdings would have been found and more progress would have been made. I want to know how many of the 116 small holders actually in occupation in December last year had rents actually fixed. We know that in many cases the buildings were not completed, or, at any rate, not paid for. I think that
    1378
    practically the expense of the buildings has to be added to the rent of the small holding, and many of the small holders will find a rude awakening awaiting them when they discover how much they have to pay for the land, and in addition how much they have to pay for interest at 4 per cent. on the cost of the buildings. In the Report it is stated that the cost of steadings suitable for a small holding of 50 acres is about £650 to £750. At 4 per cent. that involves a charge of £26 to £30. I think it will be a rude awakening for the small holders when they find they have got to pay the interest on the cost of buildings. The policy which the Government encourage the Board of Agriculture to pursue is to get as many small holders as possible on the ground, but I consider that there is not enough care taken to get the most suitable people for the holdings. Last year we referred to the questions of co-operation and land banks. There has been practically little or no progress made in providing for the co-operative sale of produce and purchase of materials and feeding-stuffs, and there has been absolutely no sort of attempt made to provide some system of land banks. I appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to deal with these questions at the earliest possible moment. There is power under the Act of 1911 to provide for cooperation schemes and land banks.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: One feels considerable difficulty in these Debates because there are so many Boards for which apparently the Secretary for Scotland is responsible. In England we have the Board of Agriculture, the President is a Member of this House, and he is responsible. In England we have the Local Government Board, the President is in this House, and he is responsible. We have a Minister of Education in this House, and he is responsible. But my right hon. Friend is held to be in some way responsible for various Boards in Scotland, and we cannot really define what his responsibility is in regard to them. I cannot really in any serious sense attack him, for I feel that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he is not responsible. I am going to give him a keelhauling in regard to one Board for which I think he is responsible, and that is the Development Commission. I think the House made a mistake when it appointed the Development Commissioners and the Road Board without having a Member here responsible to this House.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lyell): I must remind the hon. Member that it is not competent to discuss the Development Commission on this Vote. The hon. Member is quite entitled to criticise the Secretary for Scotland for not having made sufficient efforts to extract money from the Development Commission, but he cannot criticise the Development Commission for not providing sufficient money.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. HENDERSON: It is true. It your ruling. I was first of all trying to show the Committee how difficult it was for my right hon. Friend to do what it is hardly possible that he can do. What is the position of this forestry business? It is either real or a sham. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his great Social Reform Budget in 1909 he referred to the question of afforestation. In his speech he contrasted the small amount of forest land we had in this country as compared with the proportionate area in other countries, and he cited the case of Germany, where out of a total of 133,000,000 acres 34,000,000, or nearly 26 per cent., are wooded. In France 17 per cent. is wooded, and I know, as a matter of fact, that in Austria, which to a large extent, resembles part of Scotland, there is 30 per cent. of the land afforested, whereas in England the percentage is 4 per cent., and taking Scotland and England together it is 4.7 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested as a great thing for this country that we should have available land, particularly in Scotland—in England it does not so much matter; in England land is so much more fertile than in Scotland—where there are enormous districts of no good for anything else but afforestation. Oddly enough, in most places this afforestation could be used as an aid to the small holdings which we are particularly anxious to establish. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Royal Commission which inquired into this subject and recommended the acquiring of a very large amount of forest land in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. What happened? The Development Commissioners were appointed, and a Departmental Committee on afforestation was also appointed. The Departmental Committee went to the German and French forests, and had their minds enormously opened to the possibilities and capabilities of land for afforestation—land of little or no use for anything else. They made their Report in 1911. Then an Advisory Committee were appointed, and
    1380
    they were to set themselves to find out some proper places suitable for a demonstration area. They were to advise the Board of Agriculture as to how to proceed to get that area. They went to work and visited all parts, and finally made their report. In that report they recommended unanimously a certain area for purchase. There was a strong objection from Edinburgh, Edinburgh wants some things for itself, and forgets—
    Mr. HOGGE: No.
    Mr. HENDERSON: It is true. It forgets that some of the biggest areas for afforestation are a long way north of Edinburgh, or north of Perth, in Sutherlandshire. We all know what the Chancellor said about the Duke of Sutherland's-property. The great bulk of that is suitable for afforestation. It is immaterial to me where the property is, but what I say is that five years have elapsed and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has carried through all his other schemes, but not one-single penny piece has been given to Scotland. England has got a Grant, Ireland has got two Grants, and Scotland has got nothing. What has the Board of Agriculture been doing since last December? Why have they not insisted on some scheme being put forward alternative to the scheme put forward by the Advisory Committee? There is no answer. The complaint I have got is that the men who are spending money are not here to answer for it, or that the men who should be spending money, and are not, are not here to answer for it. I hope that one of the things which the Government will do very soon—or, if they do not do it, that the next Government, if it is from the other side of the House, will do it—is to do away with any body of men who are not here responsible to us for what they do. I speak as a Member for the North of Scotland, for a county in which there is an enormous forest area. When the Departmental Committee went to Germany the first thing they discovered was that the whole of our afforestation arrangements were wrong, that there had never been any proper principle, and that there were only four estates upon which there has been any attempt to lay out on a scientific plan of proper afforestation. There is an enormous number of trees growing in Scotland which are arranged on the wrong principle. You want this education in order to correct this, and to save the

    1381
    enormous waste which otherwise would occur, owing to wrong exposure, to pests, and all sorts of things which destroy trees when they are growing.
    I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend cannot press this thing. If is said that the allowance for small holdings is too small. Be that as it may, Scotland is a place for afforestation. Why cannot we get a scheme? It is a dereliction of duty that these Gentlemen who are empowered to grant money should have taken seven solid months to think out some sort of scheme. We do not know what it is. We heard rumours of a scheme from the Noble Marquess the Member for West Perthshire, but they are only rumours and we have learned nothing more. Why should we have all this delay? It is five years since a scheme was adumbrated in all earnestness and good faith by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Almost every other one of his other schemes has been carried out, but for Scotland not one penny piece has been given. I hope that as far as he can my right hon. Friend will remedy this, for remedied it must be if there is any justice at all.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I do not rise to criticise the Board of Agriculture from any economical or political point of view, nor can I for one moment attempt to speak with the technical knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. But I rise to support the points put forward by the hon. Member who has just sat down and the hon. Member who spoke a short time ago. It is fortunate perhaps that, if the Land Court is sacrosanct and protected from criticism, the Board of Agriculture can claim no such exemption. I have nothing to say about the policy by which the whole scheme of agricultural education was taken out of the hands of the Education Department, in which I think it was more fittingly and with greater expediency placed, and handed over to this new Board of Agriculture. I am perfectly certain that the results of the educational administration, even in its higher sphere, of the Board of Agriculture have been disastrous, so far, and promise to be still more disastrous in the future. But it is chiefly to this question of Grants for afforestation and agricultural instruction that I wish to call attention. We have every reason in Scotland to complain of the total neglect of this subject for the last five years. I cannot exempt the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland any
    1382
    more than his subordinate Board of Agriculture from a large share of responsibility for the failure to satisfy our expectations. It is five years since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech. He did not put the case in that speech one bit too strongly. We have had Grants for Ireland and England, and nothing at all has been done for Scotland.
    The Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Lovat, of which Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Sir John Stirling Maxwell, and the hon. Member opposite were members, unanimously reported in favour of a certain course, which, if it had been followed yearly, and with energy and good will, would long since have led to Scotland getting that afforestation and that higher instruction in agriculture, which she claims and to which she has a right. But not only have the Board of Agriculture failed to press this problem and failed to carry into effect the recommendations of the Executive Committee, but I am inclined to say that the Board of Agriculture have exercised a sinister influence all through upon this matter. Why was it that before the Executive Committee reported at all, as ultimately they did unanimously, that a certain decision was come to and announced, that the centre in Scotland should be at Edinburgh. By what influence did that come about? I wish that answered. We know quite well that there is a member of the Development Board who is also a member of the Committee of Inquiry. That member happens to be a relative of the Lord Chancellor, who is closely connected with Edinburgh University. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I make that charge perfectly clearly and perfectly straight, and a suspicion has been caused that influence has been brought to bear by one who holds a position in connection with the University of Edinburgh.
    We protested against that from the first on the part of the other universities of Scotland. Why has that sinister influence been exercised in favour of Edinburgh? When a recommendation was made with regard to a particular locality as to a suitable locality for afforestation, and that recommendation was made unanimously, how was it that one member of the executive committee who took no part in the recommendations at once, as I understand, communicated with the Scottish Office in favour of a scheme which diverged from that of his colleagues? Why has that led to constant delay and now to the emergence of a distinct

    1383
    proposal, that the central education, including, I presume, the afforestation area, should be in connection with Edinburgh University? I ask the question of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not blaming him individually in this matter, but I wish that he would clear away the doubt that has arisen. He has told us that he knew nothing whatever of the proposal. I can only say that the news has come to him last of the number of those who have a right to be and are interested in the matter. It is a matter of common rumour in Scotland, and very distinct evidence has been provided by certain officials of the Board of Agriculture who have given encouragement to the idea that this central school should be in Edinburgh to the detriment of the other universities. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am not accusing him of knowing it, or of being concerned. I only say that it was the duty of officials under him, if they were in favour of it, to bring it more directly under his knowledge. In the "North British Agriculturist" quite lately an article appeared which very distinctly indicated this proposal, and which, reading between the lines, emanated to a large extent, I am inclined to say, from the Board of Agriculture. It says:—
    "It is understood that the purpose of the Board of Agriculture, should the proposal he adopted, is to found a much larger central College in Scotland on the lines of the Welsh College in Cardigan. The idea would be that the students not only of Edinburgh, hut of Glasgow and Aberdeen, who wish to take up the higher ranges of research, would proceed to the Central Institution."
    And it adds—
    "With a willing Government Department at their back, the governing body of this Central Institution need, we think, have no fear that they will be left in the lurch, or that Imperial funds will not be forthcoming for its support."
    I would ask any hon. Member who reads that article—
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Who is the writer?
    Sir H. CRAIK: I do not know, but it seems probable that the puffing forward of these proposals by the Board of Agriculture had been the subject of some communication of views between the writer of that article and the Board of Agriculture. On what grounds can the writer of that article speak of the "willing Government Department at their back." He begins by saying, "It is understood that a purpose of the Board of Agriculture is to found this central school." Large sums of money have been spent by other
    1384
    Universities, especially the University of Aberdeen through the lavish generosity of the late Chancellor of the University, Lord Strathcona. Is it the general object that Aberdeen and the South-West of Scotland are to be set aside, and that a new scheme which has not been put before Parliament, and is absolutely without the knowledge of the Minister responsible, is to be put forward by officials of the Board of Education without the views of Parliament being taken on the question? I know quite well the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland need not be irritated or regard the criticism offered, as it is evident sense, as irritation—
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must correct my hon. Friend. It is not irritation but bewilderment. The hon. Gentleman is mixing up forestry, demonstration areas and Aberdeen and Edinburgh Universities, and I am lost in confusion. I cannot follow his observations, and I do not know what is the charge.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The right hon. Gentleman ought not to be in a state of bewilderment, and should be properly informed by the Department of which he is the head. The subject of afforestation is an important branch of the Aberdeen University instruction, and there is a suitable area in Aberdeenshire; and the Aberdeen University is ready on its part to do everything possible in regard to afforestation, on which it has spent money largely and lavishly. But it is a very different thing if after spending this money they are to be told that another policy is being more or less insidiously pursued, and that there is now being put forward in the public press, under the apparent patronage of the Board of Agriculture, a scheme in favour of having at Edinburgh a central school which is to absorb gradually the higher agricultural education of Scotland.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Is it the hon. Gentleman's complaint that instead of the demonstration area being at Aberdeen in connection with afforestation, it should be somewhere else? My idea of the demonstrative area is that it should serve the students from all the universities and schools of agriculture.
    Sir H. CRAIK: A Departmental Committee recommended Aberdeenshire unanimously, with the exception of one member, who disagreed with his colleagues, and communicated his grounds to

    1385
    the Scottish Office for not voting. Of course, agricultural students muct spend a certain time in the afforestation area in connection with the universities, but we are told that there is to be a central college of agriculture in Edinburgh, and that there is to be some afforestation area that is now being absolutely bargained for, although we know nothing about it. If it is being bargained for because it is convenient to the central school, then I think we have very fair cause to complain, first of all, that the afforestation area has been changed in this way apparently for one University; and, secondly, because the policy is being fostered by the Board of Agriculture of putting the highest part of agricultural education in Scotland in one district, to the detriment of other schools of agriculture in the South and West of Scotland, and the school of agriculture in connection with the Aberdeen University, which has been at great pains, which has spent much money, and which has done admirable work hitherto in regard to agricultural education. All I ask is that the right hon. Gentleman will make himself thoroughly conversant with what is going on, so that he may be able to tell us whether or not this policy is being pursued, or is being even encouraged by any of the officials of the Board of Agriculture; also, whether he will undertake, before any decision is come to upon this important point, that it will be brought before the House so that Scottish Members may be able to express their views.
    Mr. HOGGE: I think the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire put his linger on the spot when he suggested that the real difficulty we are labouring under is due to the fact that the Secretary for Scotland is president of so many different boards. While he is president of all these boards he, as a matter of fact, has only the same influence in the Cabinet as any other Minister; and I am not sure that it would not be a bad plan to adopt a Scottish expedient, and give to the Secretary for Scotland a cumulative vote in the Cabinet representing the various Scottish Boards which he controls, in order that we also may control the Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a complaint which I think is very unreasonable. His complaint is that certain happenings with regard to the institution of an area of education in afforestation should be made known to the Members from Scotland by the Secretary for Scotland before a decision is come to
    1386
    about it. Surely that is very unreasonable. Nothing is ever made known to the Scottish Members before it is carried into effect. My hon. Friend knows that there is happening just now in another Department of the Scottish Office something which is being done without the knowledge of Scottish Members.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I do not know.
    Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the questions I have been putting in Parliament in regard to the Scottish Office of Works, the whole internal arrangement of which are being altered without my hon. Friend venturing to put down a question to the Secretary for Scotland; and this afternoon he develops a great amount of indignation because, forsooth! the Secretary for Scotland has not given him all his information about afforestation before we come to a decision. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will give information on this one point. It is quite true—and we all realise it on both sides of the House—that the Secretary for Scotland has far too much work to do. I do not know whether anything has been done with the suggestion that for the very Board we are considering this afternoon there should be some rearrangement of the Secretary for Scotland's duties. I understand that he is very willing that certain of his duties should be deputed to some other Member. Whether that can be done with this particular Board I do not know, but I understand the matter is being considered, and I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend will tell us what is actually being done. I want to go back to the subject-matter of the Report of the Board of Agriculture. The hon. Member for Midlothian travelled over a great deal of ground, including gooseberries, warts on potatoes, and the burdens on small holders. He suggested that not nearly enough is being done with regard to the inspection of diseases of potatoes and gooseberries, and other small fruits. That is a curious complaint to come from the other side. We are continually accused on this side of creating officials, but here again, on a day when we are considering the spending and saving of money we get a demand from our critics, who are continually on the platforms outside and also in this House, rubbing in the fact that we do nothing else but appoint officials. Do they want officials or do they want diseases in gooseberries? That really is the great question at issue in this particular Debate. If

    1387
    want their gooseberries kept clean, and if they want officials to look after them, then they must stand in with the rest of us in the appointment of officials, and they must hold their tongues when they get on to the platforms—because undoubtedly in the constituencies we shall be told that we do nothing else but appoint officials—and the hon. Member for Midlothian may go about the villages of Midlothian, and point to the fact that he got officials to look after the gooseberries like a Member of ability and diligence.
    A great deal of criticism is being urged to-day against the Board of Agriculture, which deals with the vexed question of small holdings. The hon. Member for Midlothian drew attention to the fact of the very few small holders actually in occupation at the present moment, and he pointed out that that was due to the fact that the Board of Agriculture was not going about its work in the proper way. The hon. Member probably has not read the Report which has been criticised. If he had looked at it he would have found that the most important part of it is to be found in pages 13 to 15. He would have discovered there the reasons which prevented the policy of small holdings from being established. I do not propose to go over them, because we discussed them very fully in connection with the Small Holdings (Amendment) Bill upstairs, and everybody knows them. They are set out in this Report, the main reasons why the Board of Agriculture has only been able to set up a small number of holdings. The reasons are set out in four separate Sub-sections, and they are substantial reasons which my right hon. Friend knows to be true, because he supported the amendment of the law with regard to those very points upstairs, and those are the reasons that there are so few small holdings set up in Scotland at the present moment. People of Scotland will want to know from us, as we are wanting to know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland this afternoon, what are the real reasons that these small holdings are not being set up. What are the real reasons clogging the machinery of the Scottish Board of Agriculture? They are indicated in the Report, and the real reason of the clogging of the machinery of the Board of Agriculture are the claims for compensation that are being made by landlords on whose land small holdings are going to be set up. One could speak for a considerable time and bring a considerable amount of evidence to prove
    1388
    the kind of compensation which should be declined, but I am not in the least sure that some of us have not reached the position that we would rather see the Board of Agriculture shut down altogether than spend these large sums of public money to attempt to set up a few small holdings. I see that the only Gentleman on the opposite side who agrees with that is not a Scotsman, and I am afraid he would find it very difficult to defend the position of his own colleagues in their own capital. There is the crux of the whole matter, and the onus of supporting the small number of holdings that have been set up does not lie upon us on this side, but upon hon. Members opposite. A great number of my colleagues desired to raise this same point which I have raised on account of the position I was in with regard to the Bill. I do not propose to elaborate it further this afternoon, except to indicate again that the voters in Scotland will look to-morrow for the explanation, not from us but from the other side, as to why it is the Board of Agriculture has only been allowed to do what it has done. The hon. Baronet opposite suggests that he is not responsible.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am asking what have we got to do with it?
    Mr. HOGGE: If the hon. Baronet wants to know, there are methods in this House by which you can remedy and by which you can stop the remedying of this matter, and the hon. Baronet has said publicly that he will adopt the methods that will stop the remedy.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: On the contrary, what I have said publicly is that the hon. Member opposite adopted the method which stopped it, and deliberately broke an arrangement, and that is the cause of the whole business.
    The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that hon. Members are travelling outside the scope of the Vote and referring to legislation.
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not propose to exceed the limits, but the hon. Baronet knows perfectly well I made no such arrangement, and, therefore, never broke it. He knows he is "talking through his hat" the moment he makes that suggestion. Another point which does not concern small holdings, and which I would like to raise, is as to what is being done with the supervisors who were taken over from the Congested Districts Board by the Board of Agriculture. As a matter of

    1389
    fact, those men are doing work which is very necessary to the carrying out of this particular part of the Board's work. The conditions under which they get their supplies, particularly in the West of Scotland, are so difficult as to make a considerable deduction from what they are paid in wages. They are, I believe, the only set of men who were taken over by the Board of Agriculture from the Congested Districts Board who have had no change at all made in their position. I believe they have petitioned my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and, if my information is correct, they have not so far received a reply. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to look into the matter now that his attention has been drawn to it, and that he will see whether or not he can do something for a class of men for whom, as I say, nothing has been done since the Board of Agriculture took over the work of the Congested Districts Board.
    Captain MURRAY: I desire to refer to the question which was also raised by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson). I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Aberdeen (Sir H. Craik) allowed his zeal for the university which he represents to permit him to make an attack which I consider to be an unjustifiable attack on a member of the Development Commission who was not here to answer him, and who cannot, under any circumstances, answer the remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made. I pass from that and merely wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can give us information to-day as to the actual position in regard to the afforestation situation so far as Scotland is concerned. I am bound to say I do agree with the remarks which fell from the Member for West Aberdeen, and I do think that the five years which have elapsed since the Development Commission was set up have given ample time for some scheme to be brought forward and set on foot whereby Scotland would receive some of the funds of the Development Commission in respect of afforestation. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give the House some satisfactory reply, and be able to assure us that in a short space of time some scheme will be set on foot whereby Scotland will benefit from the funds of the Development Commission. With regard to the administration of the Scottish Small Landholders
    1390
    Act, I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. J. Hogge), and I think it lies with hon. Gentleman opposite, if they so desire, to assist in a manner which is open to them—the more rapid administration of the machinery of that Act. There is one criticism I wish to make with regard to the administration of the Act by the Board of Agriculture, a criticism which is in no sense carping criticism, but I think people upon whom devolve certain duties sometimes become so engrossed in the application of those duties that they do not see things in their proper perspective. The suggestion I have to make is one which I made a short time ago when it was ruled out of order. Today it is in order. Paragraph (c) on page 14 of the Report of the Board of Agriculture states:—
    "While there is a keen demand for small holdings, there is often no suitable land available where the demand is greatest, and it occasionally happens that where suitable land is available there are not enough applicants in the immediate vicinity to use the whole farm. The Board are advised that it is competent to draw upon applicants from other parts of the country in such cases, but it is not always possible to make this arrangement, because applicants are not in some cases prepared to remove."
    The Board frequently make the complaint that they do not know what farms are going out of lease, and do not know what land is available for small holdings. Quite recently an extra sub-commissioner has been added to the Board in order to make it more easy for the Board to find out where the land is available. But I would repeat here a suggestion which I have frequently made, and that is that in each county or in each district—it does not matter much which—representative farmers should be employed by the Board in order to tell the Board and keep the Board in touch with the situation as it exists, and in order to let the Board know what farms are going out of lease so that the Board may the more readily be able to place its hand upon those farms which occasion requires. It is perfectly well known that every farmer of any standing in a particular area, knows what is going on with respect to particular farms, and knows months beforehand if a particular tenant is going to quit at a particular moment. I do hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt this suggestion to a greater extent than it has been put into operation hitherto, and if he does I feel perfectly certain it will assist the Board in the administration of the Act and will lead to more small holdings being placed on the land. There is

    1391
    another point in this paragraph. It is stated:—
    "The Board are advised that it is competent to draw upon applicants from other parts of the country in such cases, but it is not always possible to make this arrangement, because applicants are not in some cases prepared to remove."
    I have always been of opinion, so far as the county which I have the honour to represent is concerned, and I have said it everywhere, and I think we would all agree upon this, namely, that if small holdings are to be placed advantageously on the land they must be placed in twos or threes and not dotted here and there. I would suggest that the Board of Agriculture should issue what I may call educative propaganda upon this subject. Time after time I have found when I talked with a man who said he wanted a small holding in a particular spot, that after a few minutes' conversation and after pointing out the advantages of being placed upon a particular piece of land with other small holders, such a man has changed his views and has been perfectly prepared to remove from that particular spot. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should see if something cannot be done to educate the small holder on that particular point.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member has just said, and especially on three points. As I understand, he suggests that care should be taken to put small holdings on farms that are falling out of lease. As far as I can gather, one of the complaints sometimes made against the Government plan hitherto adopted is that that method has not been followed as closely as it might have been. The result of that is, that you have claims by the landlord and by the tenants. I was told recently of the case of a farm where there were some six or seven years of the lease still to run, in which case, of course, the tenant would have a claim against the Board for compensation. That seems to me an absolute waste of money and must mean an increase of the rent to the small holder, or that it has got to be paid out of public money. While it is quite true that the Board have been advised—and I do not dispute that the advice is quite sound—that they are entitled to call in for small holdings in one part of the country persons who desire small holdings from another part, I do not think that that is what is intended. I think that small holdings in one district were intended to supply the people of that
    1392
    district, and it is not good administration to set up small holdings, say, in the East of Scotland, and go to the West of Scotland to get occupants for them.
    I think that the hon Member for Kincardineshire was quite right also in saying that it is a misfortune that small holdings should be set up except in considerable numbers; because unless you get cooperation between small holders you will never be able to run the thing satisfactorily. Even large farmers desire cooperation so as to be able to carry out their undertaking more successfully as a commercial venture than would otherwise be possible. I do not think that that idea has in the past been sufficiently attended by the Board of Agriculture. But the strongest indictment of the Board of Agriculture that I have seen is contained in the Report of the Land Court. The Land Court Report is dated 28th April, 1914, and was presented to the Secretary for Scotland. It is a curious fact that the Board of Agriculture Report, although dated a month later, and also presented to the right hon. Gentleman, takes no notice whatever—I do not know whether it is official courtesy or not—of the very keen and candid criticism which the Land Court made of the Board of Agriculture. I think it is worth while for the Committee to look at what the Land Court say of the Board of Agriculture. The Committee must bear in mind that one of the great complaints is that the Land Court have too much work to do, and cannot get through it. This is what the Land Court say on page 30 of their Report:—
    "Much of our time during the year has been devoted to the disposal of applications at the instance of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland."
    They give the figures, and then say:—
    "The preparation of such a large number of applications necessarily involves much labour, and not a few of the schemes show that they were prepared without sufficient consideration of details. We receive an application for a compulsory order to constitute so many holdings. When the case is heard, the promoters present an amended scheme, the number of holdings being reduced or increased according to circumstances, and the boundaries as shown on the original plan materially altered. Further alterations are frequently suggested or required. … and every substantial alteration of this kind, or transformation of a scheme, necessitates the preparation of a new plan. We were much hampered in our work for the want of plans arising from this cause, and several large schemes which were ready for disposal at the end of last year, had to be carried forward for want of receiving amended plans."
    Dealing with the point to which the hon. Member opposite referred about the necessity of having large groups of holdings, they add:—
    "Much time was also devoted to schemes involving only one or two new holdings or one or two enlarge-

    1393
    ments. These small schemes often raised as much opposition as schemes for a whole farm might raise, while the claims for damage alleged to be caused by these small schemes, if carried out, are often out of all proportion to their utility."
    I submit that that is a most serious charge by the Land Court against the administration of the Board of Agriculture. It is complained that the Land Court cannot get through their work, but the Land Court say to the Secretary for Scotland that one of the great reasons why they cannot get on with their work is that the Board of Agriculture do not do their work properly. That criticism was sent in to the right hon. Gentleman a month before the Board of Agriculture made their Report, but they take no notice of it at all. I assume, therefore, that we may take the statement to be correct; at any rate, the Board of Agriculture have nothing to say in answer to it. We shall be glad to hear if the right hon. Gentleman can supplement the deficient Report of the Board of Agriculture in that respect. If there is a defence, let us hear what it is. It seems to me that no complaint can be made if we accept the challenge of one Government Department to another, and ask to hear what is the defence. I do not desire to say anything with regard to some of the observations of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. J. Hogge). The hon. Member seemed to be much more anxious to make an electioneering speech than to speak on the Vote. I would say the same if the hon. Member were present. He has a capacity for making electioneering speeches when they are out of place. I think that some of his observations with regard to the attitude taken up by hon. Members on this side were altogether out of place, and I do not intend to reply to them.
    Colonel GREIG: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Scott Dickson) charged my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh with having a great capacity for making electioneering speeches. The hon. and learned Gentleman also is an adept in that matter; therefore, he is entitled to give an opinion on the point. Let me deal with one or two of the hon. and learned Member's observations in reference to this Report and the action of the Board of Agriculture vis-â-vis with the Land Court. He has assumed that by knocking the heads of these two Departments together he will distract attention from the root cause of the whole of the delay. In the first place, he says that the Land Court have criticised the action of the Board of
    1394
    Agriculture for the manner in which they have put forward these schemes. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh referred generally to some of the causes which appear in the Report as the reason for this delay. With the permission of the Committee, I will read one or two passages from the Report to which I do not think attention has been called. Here are the reasons why the Board of Agriculture have not been able to get on with their work. On page 13, the Report states:—
    "Some of the main causes of delay are as follows: Absence of definite information as to the tenure of land; absence of power to conclude negotiations when landlords are unwilling to co-operate, but refrain from saying so in specific terms;.… the letting of farms dining the progress of negotiations. …. The absence of definite information as to the tenure of land results in a loss of time, which is contrary to the interests of the landlord, the applicants, and the Board. It frequently happens that attention is not drawn to a farm until it is offered to let, when it is practically impossible to conclude arrangements in time to permit of the holder taking entry at the expiry of the outgoing tenant's lease."
    A little further on they say:—
    "The proprietors' agents have, in many cases, refused to supply information as to the terms on which certain farms were held, with the result that it was impossible to determine whether the farms in question were available in terms of Section 7 (16) of the Act. The Board informed the agents in such cases that application for a compulsory order for the sub-division of the land would be made to the Land Court, to whom the required information would have to be produced, and that in consequence of the proprietors' refusal the Board would feel justified in claiming for expenses."
    They point out that that leads to unnecessary correspondence and delay. They state further:—
    "In many cases landlords have intimated that before they can state whether or not they will negotiate, a scheme must be submitted to them, and the question as to what constitutes a scheme has been a source of correspondence. …"
    Lastly, they say:—
    "Several farms which were about to be vacant were relet, in some cases on long leases, during the progress of negotiations."
    Anyone who reads that and the previous Report must come to the conclusion that without making any charge against landowners in general in Scotland that there are a certain section who, with all the paraphernalia of land agents and other advisers, are determined to make this Act a failure. First of all, they refuse to negotiate at all; then they put forward unheard-of claims for compensation; they refuse to accept the decisions of the Land Court as to value; they take the most expensive, intricate, and difficult method of arbitration; and they get decisions which take every penny of public money, which has been put into this matter. Then they come here, or, through the mouth of the hon. Baronet opposite, they tell us that

    1395
    they are in favour of small holdings being created. If I might quote Scripture, as the hon. Baronet is a Scotsman, "The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: They are words of Scripture, but they are not applicable to the facts here.
    Colonel GREIG: They are applicable to the action of the hon. Baronet and of his party on that side of the House. I cannot go into what is happening in regard to legislation, but on points which would make the present Act work smoothly and the work of the Board of Agriculture much easier they are doing their best to destroy it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is not true.
    Colonel GREIG: Hon. Members are very fond of challenging my statements, but so far I am on the right side. The claims for compensation which are put forward, and which hamper the Board of Agriculture in its work are well known. There is the case to which reference has already been made, in which the landlord obtained from the tribunal which has been set up owing to the suggestion of hon. Members opposite a decision under which he got more rent by £23, and, for the mere fact that small holders were to be planted on the land, £4,600 compensation, simply because they venture to come between the wind and his nobility. If this sort of thing goes on, the Act will be absolutely useless, and the Board of Agriculture will not be able to carry out its work. I have risen to point to what I believe is at the root of it all. If hon. Members opposite are really in favour of the creation of small holdings in Scotland they will not raise objections like those just put forward by the hon. and learned Member opposite—that you are not to bring small land holders from another part of Scotland. There is not one word about that in the Act.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I never said that.
    Colonel GREIG: The hon. and learned Member suggested that it was contrary to the policy of the Act.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: On the contrary, I said it was within the policy of the Act, but I supported the hon. Member for Kincardineshire in the suggestion that it would be better if it could be avoided.
    7.0 P.M.
    Colonel GREIG: There is not a word in the Act against that being done and the sooner it is done the better. The other point I want to make is this: The real way to make the administration of this Act better is by not taking advantage of the complicated and difficult procedure which renders these claims to compensation so enormous. If I may quote scripture once more—this time a somewhat revised version—I would say that in Proverbs we find that it says, that "there are three things which are never satisfied, the grave, the earth which is not filled with water, and the fire that saith it is not enough." I would add a fourth unsatisfied thing—namely, the revised version—the particular section of landlords who demand more compensation than what they are entitled to under the Acts.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: This Debate has taken a higher turn than it did when we were discussing the question last session. I am pleased to say that on the whole, hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledge the fact that the Board of Agriculture has come to stay. I am rather amused at the criticisms which seem to divide themselves into two sets; the criticism of those on the Opposition side of the House who think that the Board is doing too much, and of hon. Members on this side of the House who think the Board is not doing so much as it ought to do. I should strongly recommend that the Committee should confine themselves to one of these aspects that we should agree upon, and that we should endeavour to make the Board of Agriculture for Scot land more efficient in its work than it has hitherto been. Something has been said, I think, about the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh which is before the House, and which I heartily wish to see passed into law—at any rate, a great part of it—before the end of the Session, because it will meet the difficulties that have been so much urged by hon. Members on the other side, that the Board has not got—
    The CHAIRMAN: There is too much desire to discuss that Bill. Hon. Members might spend the rest of the evening in that way, but it would not be in order.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I agree, Mr. Whitley, and I would only add that if we could expedite the proceedings of the Board of Agriculture in a way upon which

    1397
    we could all agree, it would be very desirable. The way that we could do that is by strongly urging upon hon. Members opposite and their Friends to help to promote the aim of the Board of Agriculture, whose great policy, as we all know, is the maintenance of the population of Scotland, and especially the agricultural population of Scotland, on its own land. That is a thing, I think, with which we all agree. Is there any hon. Gentleman in the House who does not feel that something is wrong, and that every reasonable inducement that Parliament can devise should be offered to men to get a reasonable and sensible living in their own country, instead of going to seek it over the seas? If we all agree upon that, I would suggest to hon. Members that the way to attain it, if necessary without further legislation, is this: to trust for a settlement of this question to the Board of Agriculture, and leave the Land Court alone unless it is absolutely wanted. What is to prevent the parties affected from coining to a conclusion without this delay that has been complained of? What is to prevent the Board of Agriculture and proprietors arriving at a reasonable and sensible scheme for the establishment of small holdings on the properties of the latter?
    Take the case of any hon. Member here who happens to be a proprietor. Suppose he were approached by the Board of Agriculture with a scheme for creating small holdings on some portion of his land? What would he do? He himself would arrange, or would ask his agent, or factor, or solicitor, to meet the inspector or the representative of the Board, and being Scotsmen, and the members of the Board being Scotsmen, and most, if not all of those concerned, being Scotsmen, who know a great deal about land and farming and agriculture, would it not be reasonably possible, if there was an inclination to come to terms, not only on matters of the division of land, housing or so on that a reasonable scheme should be arrived at, and agreed upon without any reference to the Land Court? The whole difficulty might be better got over with a little more common sense and a little more knowledge of land and farming by the parties concerned, than by always flying to the Land Court to settle this, that, or the other point; or what is still worse, insisting upon arbitration for damages and compensation. All this is not only the cause of enormous delay, but probably
    1398
    ends in rendering any further proceedings impossible.
    I want hon. Members here to remember that this is a question which really affects the population of Scotland. I know it is said: "Why cannot we fall back upon the procedure of the Land Clauses Act?" The two cases are not at all analogous. If a railway company comes to a man for land for business purposes, saying "We must acquire a portion of your land," that man is quite entitled to say: "If you want this land for business purposes, and for profit to yourselves as a company, I am entitled to get the best price for my land that an arbitrator might decide to award." But if the Board of Agriculture comes to a man and asks for land with a view, not only to increasing the cultivation of the land, but of enabling a much larger population to remain in Scotland, without having to go to Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, is that an occasion on which that man is entitled to say, "I must be compensated for every yard of land acquired"? No. We all know that these are cases where it is quite possible for the proprietor to give reasonable terms. I sincerely hope that we shall be able to agree, not only to grant the Vote, but to wish the Board of Agriculture well in the matters they have in hand—population, agriculture, forestry, and everything of that kind.
    I should like to remind the House of one thing which I dare say is known to a good many Members. We have all heard of the Agricultural Authority in Ireland. In some ways it is constituted on better lines than our Board of Agriculture. Of course it will be open for us in the future, I hope, to constitute the Scottish Board of Agriculture on the same lines as the Irish Board of Agriculture, which has on it representatives drawn from every county in Ireland, with the addition of a certain proportion of members appointed directly by the Government. It is a most admirable Board. From what friend tell me you never hear religion or politics discussed by it, but the welfare of agriculture in Ireland. England and Scotland will have to take care what they are about or Irish agriculture will leave them behind altogether. I think that will be a very serious thing. It is a matter we ought to take into earnest consideration. We ought to do all we can to foster and extend the influence of the Scottish Board. I think we may all assure the right hon. Gentleman that in carrying out the good work he is with a view to the

    1399
    improvement and the extension of agriculture in Scotland, and for increasing the agricultural population of Scotland, if he wants either more men or more money, if he only comes to the House of Commons he will be supported.
    Mr. WATSON: First of all, I should like to deal with some of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I do not wish to say anything about his quotations from Scripture, except to suggest that they appeal to me as indicating a misspent attendance at service last Sunday. In regard to the rest of his remarks, given with some heat, I confess I was not surprised to hear that he again reiterated the taunt which is so often levelled at Members on this side of the House, that they represent only landlords, and not only landlords, but bad landlords, and no other landlords! He quite fairly said that there was a section of landlords who were against the Act, and would not do anything to help it. But, after all, landlords are human just like other people in the world. If you take any class of people you will certainly find a percentage that differs from the opinion of the rest of the community and will not give any help to forward any scheme of social reform. Whatever class you like to take that will be so, and the case is no more or no less true of landlords than of any other class. To suggest that we on this side are the parties who represent that bad section of landlords who obstruct the operation of the Act is absolutely untrue, and on behalf of my hon. Friends I deny that charge altogether. As to our action in regard to the Bill which has been recently through Committee, I would only say that the question of compensation, and the allegations of extravagant compensation, have been thrashed out upstairs.
    The question of compensation was fixed by the Act, and the method by which it is arrived at was fixed by the Act. It was the awards under this method of which hon. Members opposite are complaining. We say quite plainly that some of their speeches, and also their proposals, show that their desire is not to give full and fair compensation to the landlords—or to the tenants—but to get the land for something less, because they say it is for the public good. It may be a debatable proposition as to whether you are entitled to take money out of people's pockets because you say you are doing it
    1400
    for the public good, and to pay those concerned less than they are fairly entitled to because it is a good object. It is a very different proposition to say that the landlords are being endowed or getting money into their pockets which they ought not to get. It is perfectly true that where the shoe pinches is that the amount of compensation for the class of scheme, or some of the schemes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, is proving a heavy expense, and it has been made clear, as we on this side of the House, at any rate, have said all along, that the amount of money applied for the purpose is totally inadequate. It is also making clear—or clearer—that another thing which has been suggested from our side all along is right and sound, and that is that purchase is rather the proper method than the method adopted by this Act.
    There are two things—minor things they may be, but both important in their way—which I am sorry not to see mentioned in this Report. The first thing is one that concerns to some extent the constituency I have the honour to represent, and that is bee disease. Everyone regrets that nothing more has been done to deal with this horrible pest, known as the Isle of Wight disease. No mention is made of any steps legislative, administrative, or otherwise, to try and get rid of a disease that is having a serious effect upon the bee-keeping industry. I have instances of two districts in my own part of Scotland where great damage has been done. The other point is that there is no mention of any steps being taken in regard to the development and promotion of land banks which undoubtedly is a purpose contemplated by Section 4, Sub-section (5) of the Act of 1911, and also the promotion of co-operative credit societies. The latter may be covered by the general phrase on page 52 of the Report. There is a third point on the general question of small holdings, and the settling of these new holdings. It does seem to me that a good deal of congestion can be accounted for by the fact that the schemes for the settlement of the new holders as well as the Forestry Department of the Board are in the hands of the same official, and I am not surprised that we find in the Report that as many as 144 schemes are recommended to the Board by the Small Holdings Commissioners, and to find that things are behind because there may be many more schemes not sufficiently advanced to be recommended, but which are

    1401
    under consideration. That means a vast amount of work, and that accounts for the fact that the forestry scheme has not gone ahead as fast as we should like, and on that I have something to say.
    With regard to afforestation I should like to associate myself entirely with remarks upon the delay of the demonstration area that fell from the lips of the hon. Member for the Richmond Division, and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire. We find that after the demonstration area had been so strongly recommended by the Departmental Committee m their Report, December, 1911, and thereafter by the Advisory Committee appointed to the Board, who thoroughly went into this question as to where that area should be, and spent nearly two years in making up their minds, which was a quite proper and very necessary amount of time to spend upon it, and when they settled upon the estate of Ballogie in Aberdeenshire, and requested the Development Commissioners for the necessary loan to carry out that scheme, it is curious that we should be told, on page 53 of the Report, that:—
    "The Committee's Report recommending the acquisition of this area was sent to the Development Commissioners in December, 1913, for consideration as to whether they will approve the project and advise the Treasury to grant the necessary fund, but in the meantime the Development Commissioners have been making nquiries as to whether a suitable area, nearer to the geographical centre of Scotland, cannot be obtained upon long leasehold term."
    I make this comment. What have the Development Commissioners to do with finding another area? They suggest an alternative of getting an estate on leasehold terms, I protest strongly against any such scheme, and I ask the Board to adhere to their first scheme of purchase. The Departmental Committee in December, 1911, said:—
    "The area should be acquired by purchase. Its value for demonstrative purposes will steadily increase with the length of its record. A lease however long presents an eventual risk which in our judgment should not be run."
    I think it is clear in these days when objection is taken to long building leases that a long lease, even for 999 years, would be more expensive than purchase, and further if there was a lease suggested for 150 years in connection with the scheme suggested in Perthshire, it would be quite impracticable in the case of a crop from which you could not expect a return while it is growing for a period of between 60 and 100 years. You could hardly have any result before your lease had expired. There is another difficulty in setting a basis on which the lease is
    1402
    to come to an end. At the back of this I suppose there is the suggestion to find another area. It is suggested that Ballogie is not central enough. I should like to remind hon. Members that this demonstration area is not intended to be a place to which the students from the various agricultural centres are to go for a day's picnic. That is not intended. What is intended as we see, from the Report of the Forestry Committee, is that they should go there for school for a month or six weeks at a time with their own lecturers, and, therefore, the difference between distance from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and from Edinburgh to Perthshire in these circumstances is practically nothing. It is much more important to get a place as suitable as possible in quality and situation, and the Committee deal with this question of a central area on the first page of the Report of December, 1911. They say:—
    "Our inquiries do not lead us to expect that it will be possible to find an area fulfilling all the above conditions. It will be especially difficult to find a suitable stocked area near the centre of Scotland. It may be necessary to choose between a forest ideally central, which will take fifty years to get into order, and a forest less central, but fit to be of service at once. If the Government finds itself in this dilemma, we advise, provided the less central forest is accessible by railway, that quality should be preferred to situation."
    The Advisory Committee which recommended Ballogie followed that advice precisely because they found it was the only suitable place, and they had great difficulty in even getting an available place apart from the quality of the place in Scotland. Accordingly, I hope that this, I will not say peccant paragraph, but sinister paragraph on Page 53 of the Report, which suggests that the Development Commissioners are looking about to-day, after it had been attempted by the Expert Committee, to find a suitable area on long leasehold terms, will not be acted upon by the Board. I do not know whether it has anything to do with it, but it may be explained that this Report recommending the Ballogie estate was approved by the Board of Agriculture, was forwarded to the Development Commissioners in December, 1913, but the other day there came out a Report by that clandestine Committee on Land in Scotland, and we find there that while they agree entirely and are impressed strongly with the idea that afforestation schemes and demonstration areas in particular should be gone on with as soon as possible, they suggest that the land should be taken for a long period of years for afforestation. I most highly

    1403
    disapprove, I must say, of this theory of compulsorily renting this land from the landowner. I think it should be purchased out and out. It is quite a different question as to what are fair terms upon which that purchase should be made. It is much open to debate, and I think there might be improvement in that respect. I quite agree in some instances when the State or local bodies purchase land they do so on terms which I certainly should not hesitate to describe as extortionate. I do not hesitate to admit that, and I think there is room for improvement, but I am speaking this moment of the difference between purchase and compulsorily long leases or short leases, and it seems to me a bad principle to compel the owner to give up his land and not allow him to do what he wants with it. Afforestation will entirely take up the use of it. I would like, in conclusion, to say that I heartily agree with what was said, I think, by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire about the advantage which afforestation can be made to have in connection with small holdings. The recommendation is that as far as the demonstration area is concerned there should be small holdings for those employed over that area only and over the country for experimental purposes, and in the case of these experimental strips I think the work can be very suitably bound up with small holdings.
    Mr. FALCONER: I do not desire to travel over the ground already covered in the course of this Debate, or the other Debates. I desire to say a word in regard to land for small holdings. It is generally accepted that the creation of small holdings throughout Scotland is by far the most important duty placed upon the Board of Agriculture at the present time. For that means the preservation of the class of people to the land of Scotland upon whose character and physique everyone will agree the position of Scotland, not only at home but abroad, very largely depended in the past. I think it is now accepted that some method of restoring that class of people to the land is not a matter of choice, but has become a matter of absolute necessity if the Scotland of the future is to be like the Scotland of the past. It is from that standpoint that I regard the legislation and administration with regard to the land in Scotland. When you look at the men, especially the men required for our industrial enterprises, everyone who has to do with the management of
    1404
    industrial concerns knows that the gravest want at the present time is to find practical men, born, trained, and brought up in the country, who have got a thoroughly good education, and who go into business with that keen determination, which has characterised that class of Scotsman, to do better than other men. And for our agricultural positions, and this is not always realised, there is nothing more necessary at the present time than to have coming on the kind of men who might, by the practical experience gained on small holdings, be turned into first-class agriculturists. If you take farmers generally throughout Scotland, at any rate in the parts which I know best, it will be found that the men who are the best farmers either began as small holders or were the sons or grandsons of small holders. In the interests of the owners of great estates, there is nothing more important than the bringing on of that class of people who can cultivate the land which they occupy. I can remember perfectly well when it was the greatest object and desire of the landlord in the county which I represent and where I was born and brought up to have as many people on small holdings as they could, and there are many landlords still of that opinion. The real reason they could not do it was the difficulty of finding the money for the buildings and the permanent improvements. Now, the Board of Agriculture is prepared to spend money for those purposes.
    With regard to this Act, passed as it was with the desire on both sides to settle this question which was so clamouring for a settlement, it is one of our great disappointments that the very class of people one expected to be most anxious to put the people on the land are those who have been referred to in the Report, which shows that one of the real difficulties has been the obstruction of one kind or another at the instance of the landlord from whom they have sought to take land for small holdings, and they have met with a refusal of information. When the Board goes to try to form a colony of small holdings on a farm they meet with all kinds of trouble over the scheme, and that class of difficulty which has been referred to in the Report shows that for some reason or other landlords have not supported the Board in Scotland, and have not done their best to try and get on the land the greatest number of small holders with the money at the disposal of the Board. Another real difficulty is the one which has been repeatedly referred to, namely, the

    1405
    claims that have been made for compensation at the instance of the landlord. I think it is necessary that it should be made perfectly clear what is the nature of this claim. Take the three cases which have been singled out for criticism—the Lindean case, the Heriotfield's case, and the South Uist case. If you examine these three cases you will find that £15,000 has been given to the landlords as compensation over and above whatever is necessary to place them in as good a position as regards their income before the land was taken for small holdings. They get the same return and in some cases a better return. Over and above that they are entirely relieved of any obligation for the renewal of the buildings upon the estates, and yet over and above that these awards in these three cases have given the landlords in all £15,000.
    In one case there is a deduction made of £1,200 or £1,300, because to that extent the position of the landlord is made better than it was before. That money is paid, because the landlords have got a number of small holders in place of one large farmer on the farm. They are relieved of all the obligations with regard to buildings which they would have in the case of the large farmers. They have better security for their rent, because they have a larger number of tenants and, at any rate, in the part of the country which I know best, the rent of the small holder is more secure than the rent of the large farmer, because he has no labour bill to pay. In the bad days of agriculture twenty or thirty years ago in our district, while the rents of large farms went down 20 or 30 per cent., the rents of the small holders were maintained practically at the same level. Therefore this means that the landlord has the same return from his land, although he is relieved of the responsibility of renewing the buildings, and he has in addition better security for his rent, and yet these enormous awards of compensation are paid. And why? The real ground upon which they are supported is that the landlord does not like to have on his land people over whom he has no control, because he cannot turn them out. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] But that is the basis of the compensation. I should not be in order if I were to argue out the question of whether that should or should not be allowed, but I point this out as the real difficulty standing in the way of the Board of Agriculture in settling small holders on the land. Although I
    1406
    criticise these cases from a different point of view, I agree with what the Earl of Camperdown said, that a great public scandal was being perpetrated by the payment of these great claims for compensation in the carrying out of this policy.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not see how the Secretary for Scotland has any jurisdiction over that matter. We can only debate things now that are within his jurisdiction under the existing law. This seems to be a complaint which arises out of the law as it stands, and therefore we must pass it over.
    Mr. FALCONER: The great disappointment with regard to the Board of Agriculture, whose action we are now discussing, is that they have not created more small holdings.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may make that simple statement, but he must not proceed to argue the case.
    Mr. FALCONER: I do not intend to argue it. My point is that that is the real reason why the Board have failed to carry out what we all hoped would be the result of this Act and the duties and powers entrusted to them. That is the point I make, and that is what we must consider. I am not permitted to discuss the question of how that difficulty can be removed, but I think it is due to the Board of Agriculture, and to those who support the policy of this Act, to point out that that is the real reason, and, to my mind, the only grave reason, apart from the enlarging of the machinery of the Act and increasing its efficiency, which is stopping the creation of small holdings throughout Scotland. I know that they have difficulties, because the applications which have been made for small holdings have been largely in excess of what the machinery which was created was qualified to deal with. That is also a difficulty which also stands in the way. They have also had difficulties in getting the applications which they have made dealt with by the landlords, and I think it is only fair to say that. That is my judgment after carefully studying the question. This is partly due to the fact that there are provisions requiring that schemes should be formulated and discussed with the landlord in detail before they are submitted to the Land Court. I sympathise with the Board, because they have, in carrying out a great policy of this kind, to proceed to the discussion of every detail—first with

    1407
    the landlord and then before the Land Court, and then bring the amount of the scheme to suit the views of both. There is great room for a simplification of the machinery. While undoubtedly all that has to be said with regard to the machinery, the real difficulty which lies at the root of this small result accruing from the powers entrusted to the Board of Agriculture lies in the enormous claims for compensation which have to be met in order to enable small holdings to be created.
    Captain GILMOUR: I must at once differ with the opening statement made by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer), who said that it would be agreed that by far the most important question which the Board of Agriculture had to deal with was small holdings. I am prepared to admit that the establishment of small holdings, particularly in groups, is an eminently desirable thing. I agree that if you can put more people upon the land and encourage more people than there are at the present time to take an active interest and gain a living on the land, and if you can do anything to add to more intensive cultivation of the land, you will be doing an excellent work. I agree with the statement that you will have in the country a class of man whom you could depend upon for service in the Army or Navy in time of difficulty, but I at once differ from a great number of hon. Members opposite, who seem to be entirely obsessed with this idea that the Board of Agriculture is constituted purely or primarily for the establishment of small holdings. In my judgment there are many other important matters which require to be dealt with in connection with agriculture. Everyone will admit that if agriculture is to be successful in Scotland—or, indeed, in any country—it cannot be by one method alone. I think it is misleading to the general public that a statement such as the hon. Member for Forfarshire has made should go without being challenged. The hon. Member also claimed that the landlords were unfair in the claims which they made, and that they were not, as a body, desirous of seeing the number of small holders increase upon their property.
    Mr. FALCONER: I never said that What I said was that it was evident that the Board of Agriculture had to come in contact with landlords who were not in
    1408
    favour of that policy, but I always disclaim any reflection upon landlords as a body.
    Captain GILMOUR: Then are we to understand the hon. Member goes so far as to say that in every case with which the Board of Agriculture has dealt to his knowledge since they have been in operation they have been met with a refusal by the landlords to do that which he thinks they ought to do.
    Mr. FALCONER: No, I never said so.
    Captain GILMOUR: I gather the hon. Member says that he has been led to that conclusion by reading the Report. He tells us it is unreasonable that such landlords as have done so should have taken that attitude, because their income is going to remain as great as ever it has been under this policy. I should want to be a little more satisfied upon that point before I could agree with any such statement. Even if the income were to remain the same, that is not the whole question. Surely compensation is due for depreciation in the selling value and in the capital value of the property. One knows full well that so far as experience has gone with other holdings in the past, that rents have been revised more than once, and if any landlord to-day be told that he is going to receive the same amount in rent that he has received in the past, or even an increased rent, he has no guarantee whatever that in several years' time, or less, a revision will not take place, and that his income will disappear. No one who has studied the history of small holdings in Scotland can deny that the reductions have been enormous in many cases, and have been very serious to a great number of landlords, because, after all, all of these landlords are not of independent means apart from their property. There is no use on this occasion labouring this point at greater length. All I can say is that I hope in their dealings with this question of setting up small holdings, the Board of Agriculture will more and more turn their faces towards the possibility of acquring land, or, indeed, whole farms at a time, and particularly of concentrating their efforts on securing them when leases fall in.
    I think it is desirable at this time to review in some measure the work of the Board of Agriculture. I can only repeat, what I have said in this House before, that I thought it was a mistake to set up a separate Board in Scotland, but, that

    1409
    policy having been carried out, and that Board having been constituted, I am sure, if it is to be efficient and if it is to deal with the multifarious subjects with which any Board of Agriculture must deal, it must be considerably strengthened. I am at once bound to admit, if that is to be the case, that greater expense must be incurred. It is one of the greatest difficulties which we have in this House, that if we are going to be consistent, we must admit greater expense is necessary. I am bound to say, too, that I think a great part of the expenditure would have been rendered unnecessary if this Board had not been constituted in the way in which it has, and if the opportunity had been taken of using much of the information and the knowledge which was already possessed by the then British Board, which is now the English Board. Though I do not know that it is possible to go back upon that policy, I think the day may come when it will be found more to the advantage of agriculture as a whole that it should be a Department rather than a separate Board. I would ask hon. Members on the other side of the House whether, having paid so much attention as they have done to the question of small holdings, they are not neglecting to some extent some of the other interests of agriculture. Going up and down the country, I have from time to time received complaints from farmers that some of their representations and their correspondence have not received that early consideration and reply which they expected, and I am constantly being told that their position under this new Board in Scotland is a very disappointing one. I at once admit the great difficulty with which a new body—such as the present Board of Agriculture—is faced, but I hope that they will, so far as it is in their power, give attention to those other matters outside the question of small holdings, and that we shall see perhaps a greater co-operation than we have seen in the past between the agricultural interests and the Board.
    May I say one word about the question of horse-breeding, in which I take a somewhat special interest? I am grateful to the Board for the work which they are doing in that direction, but I want to ask whether they are quite certain that the Highland pony stallions, which they are using or are proposing to use, in the Highland districts, are absolutely free from the taint of Clydesdale blood? One of the greatest difficulties in producing the right class of pony, more particularly for the
    1410
    small holder in the Highland district, lies in the fact that the breed has become intermixed with Clydesdale blood. I have been recently in some of the districts of the Highlands, and have talked with those who are constantly buying and selling this class of horse. I have always been told by everyone whom I have consulted that there is an increasing use of the Clydesdale and a consequent disappearance of the right class of pony. Those are difficulties which cannot be overcome in a day, but it is clear, if the Board are subsidising, as they are now, a hill pony, a Highland pony, and in some districts are subsidising the Clydesdale, that without some careful supervision and management and education of the small holders who own the ponies you are going to have a mixture of blood which will end in great disaster both to the hill pony and to the Clydesdale. This is a question which is deserving perhaps of rather close attention on the part of the Board, and I would ask them to give it due consideration.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: Perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two observations on the question of afforestation, and more particularly with reference to its nearness to Edinburgh. I should be the last to say, whilst I sit for an Edinburgh constituency in this House, that I should put Edinburgh above every other consideration. After all, we have to consider what is for the general good of Scotland. We have every reason to complain of the lengthy time which the Board of Agriculture has taken to settle this question where they will have an estate in Scotland for the purposes of afforestation. Grants have been given from the Development Fund for, I think, six years, and at the end of this period we seem to be still as far off as ever from settling where this afforestation is going to take place. I find from the last Return of the Development Fund, up to 31st March, 1913, that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in England received Grants to the amount of £70,370, and the Department of Agriculture in Ireland £21,446, whilst Scotland received only £4,500. If Scotland had received eleven-eightieths, just as it does in other Grants, it would under this heading have received, not £4,500, but £9,676. It is a great misfortune, through the inability of the Board of Agriculture to come to any decision where it will buy or lease an estate for afforestation, that we should not be getting our fair proportion from the Development Fund. I am aware that when a

    1411
    deputation waited upon the Secretary for Scotland some time ago from the Edinburgh University they laid before him a scheme whereby the hon. Member for Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine) or the Duke of Atholl were to lease them an estate. I heard the whole statement made by that deputation, and I am perfectly certain this scheme would not bear examination from a financial point of view, and that no Treasury or Development Commissioners could possibly have entertained it. I think the Secretary for Scotland will bear me out when I say that when that deputation waited upon him I pointed out the defect of the scheme.
    8.0 P.M.
    After that, of course, there came under the consideration of the Board this estate in Aberdeenshire, and I now understand that they are considering again the question of leasing property in Perthshire. It would be a disaster if they took any land on lease, because it works out in the long run that it is greatly to the advantage of the landlords, and not those who lease the property. Therefore, I strongly condemn any leasing of any kind. It should be purchased. I should like to point out that this purchase of land for afforestation, as well as the compensation you are paying to landlords under the Land Act, would be very materially lessened if the House had adopted years ago the rating of land values. If when you were entering into negotiations for the purchase of an estate for afforestation the landlord knew that if he declined a certain price he would be rated upon it, you would have less difficulty in coming to some arrangement with him. I should like some explanation of this long delay. It has certainly been unfortunate. If there were one thing more than another for which this Development Commission was most suited, it was the development of afforestation. We should, therefore, like some explanation which so far we have not been able to get. There is another matter I should like to refer to. I find in the Report that the Board of Agriculture has given £13,071, being half of the net maintenance of the three agricultural colleges in Scotland. I do not say that that Grant is too large, but I would like to point out the great disparity between that amount and the very small sum given to the two veterinary colleges. These two colleges receive £675 only, and I trust the Board will see the necessity for making large Grants in the future. With
    1412
    regard to the question of small holdings, I do not propose to say much, because it is a subject on which other Members have more right to speak. But, in my opinion, one matter for very serious consideration is to be found in the fact that at the end of all the legislation we have had—legislation to which we had been looking forward so hopefully—only 214 persons have been settled on new holdings.
    Major HOPE: Is not the total 116?
    Mr. PRICE: No, 214 have been settled upon new and enlarged holdings. That is an exceedingly disappointing result. It is deplorable that, notwithstanding the legislation that we have had, there are fewer small holdings in Scotland than years ago, because the number of farms which have been attached one to the other has completely destroyed the effect of the creation of new holdings. I do not know whether the Secretary for Scotland will agree to give a Return, but I should like to get information as to what has been the cost of the Crofters' Commission since it was established in 1881, and how that cost compares with the reductions which have been made in rents. I believe the cost of administering the Act of 1881 has been about equal to the reduction in rents and I should like to find out whether the same result has followed here. You asked the general taxpayers of the country to pay taxes for administering Acts from which they themselves only get an indirect benefit, and you are asking the people to tax themselves in order that you may establish small holdings. The result to me is very disappointing. A great many people suggest that this problem should be dealt with by land purchase. I trust that that idea will not be entertained. I know what was the effect of land purchase in Ireland. It resulted in an increase in the value of the land by from seven to eleven years' purchase. We think there is a very much better way of dealing with the matter, and if you rate the land at its true value, you need not trouble about land purchase.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: The Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott), earlier in the evening, alluded to methods of intermediate education in connection with agricultural work. The Secretary for Scotland knows about one of these methods in which I am interested, and I hope that, in his reply,

    1413
    he will say something about the intentions of the Government with regard to that scheme. It is a scheme for the establishment of an agricultural institute near Inverness to give instruction of the kind which was described by the Member for Bridgeton to small holders and their dependents. The Secretary for Scotland received a deputation on the subject and showed himself very sympathetic. I believe he has been in negotiation with the Board of Agriculture with regard to that scheme, and I hope he may be able to say to-night, for the information of the Committee, whether it is likely he will be able to give, as suggested by the Member for Bridgeton, help to the Development Commissioners or otherwise, from the funds at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture, for the development of establishments of that description.
    Mr. BARNES: I wish to draw attention to one or two points with regard to the failure of the Board of Agriculture to carry out certain provisions in the Act of 1911. I refer particularly to the powers of the Board in regard to lending money, and in regard to co-operation. I see, in the report of the Board of Agriculture, there is a long statement of what has been done up to date in respect of lending money. It is stated that in 1912 there were 200 applications for loans for building houses and so on, but, owing to the congestion of business during that year, nothing was done. I do not complain so much about that. It is quite possible that, owing to the confusion and friction consequent on the setting up of the Board, other matters had prior attention. But then the Report goes on to state that, during 1913, there have been a great many applications. There is also something with regard to limiting the areas from which applications come, applications which have received attention. I find that during 1913 the total amount expended in this way for loans was £5,159 10s. For my part I attach a great deal of importance to the provisions of the Act in that respect, more particularly as I have had some information given me during the past year in regard to the position of agricultural labourers in Scotland, and the pecuniary circumstances generally of the men whom it was intended should benefit by the Act.
    The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that upstairs I moved an Amendment on this matter, and I then quoted figures which had been given by a Scottish newspaper, dealing with the
    1414
    people who had made applications, and with the class of people who were expected to apply for small holdings. This Scottish newspaper had circularised a large number of people in Scotland with a view to finding out how it was that they had either not applied for small holdings, or, having applied for them, had not been able to get them, and invariably the answer given by these people was "lack of money." It is perfectly reasonable, because a man in Scotland working on a farm, even though he be in a position slightly better than that of an agricultural labourer, only gets a sufficient wage to cover his every-day needs, and, therefore, if you are going to set up small holdings on anything like a large scale, you must give a generous interpretation to the powers conferred by the Act of Parliament. There has been some geographical limit put on the area within which loans have been made during the last year. There is nothing in the Act to justify that. Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Act seems to me to give power to the authorities to lend money by way of assisting small holders, but, from what I can gather, the Board of Agriculture have only used the powers given them under Section 9, to lend money on the erection of buildings where small holdings have been set up. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that, if possible, the greatest amount of power is taken under the Act in the future, so that more money may be lent.
    The next point I want to call attention to—and here again the authorities have not done that which I should like to have seen them do—is they have not made use of the powers they possess under the existing Act to promote a system of co-operation amongst small holders. From what I can see, nothing whatever has been done in that direction, and, if anything has been accomplished, I should like to hear what it is from the Scottish Secretary, and I should like, if possible, to get some promise from him that more will be done in the future. I feel sure that in the principle and practice of co-operation is to be found the ultimate success of small holdings, and I am confirmed in that view by a visit I paid to Denmark last year, when my colleagues and I made special investigation into small agriculture in that country. I was reminded, when listening to a speech by an hon. Member opposite, of what we had seen in Denmark. The hon. Member opposite spoke of the need of grouping small holdings, and we visited

    1415
    several places where small holders had started in groups. I remember quite well one place where there was a group of ten small holders who were in a position to avail themselves of machinery they had acquired by pooling their capital. They had pumping apparatus for the use of all the holders, and they were able to carry on farming, I will not say as economically or as efficiently as a farmer on a large scale, but, at any rate, much more economically than if the ten small holders worked separately instead of being grouped together.
    I should like to say a word or two on the line which has been taken by the hon. Baronet opposite and many of his colleagues. It is a line which has astonished me. We have heard recently a good deal of severe criticism with regard to officials in the Government service. The criticisms touching the Land Court were, I admit, very mild. So far as I remember the chief objection was that the Court had not announced the principles upon which its awards were based. But I was amused to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Major Hope), who complained that the Scottish Board of Agriculture had not done all it might have done in the way of the inspection of fruit farms. He spoke of diseases affecting gooseberry bushes and potatoes, and so on, and he went so far as to suggest that the Board of Agriculture should set up some sort of inspection at the ports where fruit is imported from foreign countries. As he developed that argument, I could not help thinking of all I have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite about this particular Government creating hordes of officials, because it seemed to me that if you are going to start the inspection of gooseberry bushes, fruit farms, and fruit imported from foreign countries, you are going to have a multiplication of Government officials beyond the dreams of anybody who sits on this side of the House, or, at any rate, of anybody whom I have ever heard discussing these matters. I would suggest to the hon. Member that if he desires to see that clean fruit is put upon the market, he should urge upon the Board of Agriculture, or some other authority, the necessity of seeing that the fruit farms of Scotland are carried on under much more cleanly conditions than they are at present.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business
    1416
    set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (by Order).
    [MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
    As amended, considered.
    NEW CLAUSE (Further saving to Postmaster-General) inserted, and Amendments proposed by the promoters agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Before the Question is put, I should like to make one or two observations, as I was responsible for blocking the Bill yesterday afternoon with a view to obtaining better arrangements for workmen's trains on this line between Barking and Fenchurch Street, and Barking and St. Pancras. I have been assured by the agents that it is quite impossible to do anything in regard to that particular matter until certain work proposed has been carried out. I have met the agents, and we have come to an understanding that as soon as the work is done the company will try to make better arrangements for workmen's trains. Therefore I withdraw my opposition.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    King's Assent signified. Bill read the third time, and passed with Amendments.

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. LYELL in the Chair.]

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).— (Class II.)
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £221,100, 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, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland."
    Mr. BARNES: I wanted to point a little moral in regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Major Hope). He suggested an examination of fruit imported from foreign countries. I would suggest that a great deal more might be achieved by an examination of the labour and other conditions in which fruit is grown in Scotland, because I know that at the present time there are fruit farms there where the labour conditions and the conditions of life generally are of the most abominable and filthy character. Tramps are taken off the road; they sleep about four in a bed; there is no medical examination, and no provision is made whereby safety and decency can be maintained. I therefore suggest, as an alternative to examining fruit coming in from abroad, that the conditions under which fruit is gathered in Scotland should be made much better than they are at the present time. I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said from the benches opposite as to the small return for the amount of money spent under this Act. It is a lamentable thing that we should spend thousands and thousands of pounds every year, not on officials, but in many other ways, as to which I do not know that they were contemplated when the Act was passed. I agree with the hon. Member opposite who said that it is a very small return that with three years' experience, and after spending a great deal of money, only 214 new holdings have as yet been set up, and that there are no less than 8,000 applications for these holdings. As to the reason for this small achievement, I am inclined to think that a great deal less might have been spent in compensation to landlords, and that more would have been spent otherwise if the Act was given a fair interpretation.
    I notice that an hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Ayrshire is rather on the defensive so far as landlords are concerned. He assures us that landlords are no worse than other people. I do not know that anybody said they were, but they have friends at court more than other people have, and, as a result, we have the case of Lindean and similar cases, where, after having had the estates cut up, the landlords are in receipt of as much or more money than they were before, and yet are given compensation for, I suppose, loss of selling value. I do not know that this has been done with any other class in the community. I do not say that landlords
    1418
    are worse than other people, but they have had opportunities given to them which other people have never had. May I remind the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) of the Act dealing with publicans which was passed last year. Their property has been taken away and nothing given to them, whereas in this case the landlord retains what he had before and gets something given to him for nothing. You cannot give the money to the landlords at Lindean and elsewhere and, at the same time, use it for fencing, draining, and setting up small holdings. If we are going on with this sort of legislation at all I am inclined to think with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), that it is not the best sort of legislation, but, unlike him, I think we ought to buy the land, whereas he wanted to tax it. We ought to buy it outright. Then we should have better results than we have had under this Act. I thought three years ago that this Act was going to afford a medium by which we should allow things to remain pretty much as they were, so far as ownership was concerned, but that we should get the best out of it. I am rather inclined to the other view now, and am of opinion that if we are going to effect any great and permanent improvement on a large scale, we shall have to take our courage in both hands and enable the local authorities to buy land outright, not to buy it on the fancy prices landlords have hitherto been given, but on a fair value, namely, on the value upon which they themselves pay taxes or rates. If we proceed on that line we should achieve better results than we have done under this Act, or should do under the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in all that he has said, but I heartily agree with a good deal he did say about co-operation, and the grouping of small holdings. A great deal of money has been dissipated by too much expense having been incurred in the formation of single holdings here and there. The Board of Agriculture would be well advised in future, so far as they possibly can, to constitute groups of holdings where the compensation would be a great deal less than it would be if they took a single holding by cutting out one of the best parts of a farm. I think we had a case in Caithness where the small enlargement of a holding, of a rental of only 35s. a year,

    1419
    cost £300 in compensation to obtain. Why? Because the particular part taken was the only suitable bit of ground on the whole farm for lambing. It was where the sheep always congregated, and, of course, the farm was seriously reduced in value from the fact that it was taken over. It would be a great advantage to buy the land, which is by far the best plan, always provided we do not go on managing the estates ourselves as we have been doing in the past in the case of Syre, Barra, Glendale, Seafield, and so on. The State makes an uncommonly bad manager.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It makes bad tenants.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That is so. They pay an ordinary landlord their rent when they very often decline to pay it to the right hon. Gentleman and his minions, and for a very good reason. Our experience of these estates which have been purchased in the Highlands has been very unfortunate. The purchase of the land outright and the re-sale to the small holder could be done quite well, and it would be much more successful than the present system, but the hon. Member must not forget that it is only honest to pay compensation for loss. The State, for its own reasons, is pursuing this policy. It is trying to create a very much larger number of small holders on the soil than at present, which is a very legitimate, proper and desirable policy, but it is only here and there that the individual is affected. The whole of the land owners of Scotland are not affected by this policy. It is only here and there that land is suitable and is taken. When it is taken why should the individual suffer? If he can show that he is suffering a loss he ought to be repaid by the State, as Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman always said. It may be there is something to be said as to the manner in which these sums of compensation are being assessed and paid. I am only putting the point that where a loss can be proved it is the State that ought to suffer and not the individual. I will give an instance which came under my own notice the other day, which is interesting. A good many crofters in the North of Scotland have been seen lately by a friend of my own who has been discussing the question with them and asking information about it, and in ever so many cases he noticed a particular desire on the part of the crofters that if anyone should suffer from the creation of these holdings it
    1420
    should not be the individual landlord but the State, and he heard a very strong criticism made of the spirit shown in the Committee upstairs in connection with the matter. That I thought was a sign of grace.
    Mr. BARNES: The compensation has been given upon a speculative basis, and not upon an actual loss at all.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not discussing that question at all. That is not really the point. I am only discussing the question as to who ought to bear the loss. There may be differences of opinion about the amount of the loss and the fixing of compensation. My only point is that where a loss can be shown to arise from the formation of these small holdings, it ought to be borne, not by the individual but by the State as a whole. In connection with what I said about the financial position of some of the Congested Districts Boards purchases, the first thing I noticed was that the Report of the Board of Agriculture did not contain the smallest information about those properties. The Congested Districts Board always gave an annual account of each of these properties, and this Report ignores them altogether. I asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he could afford that information and he was courteous enough to do it in the White Paper which supplements the Report. I hope this will appear annually. I hope that another omission which I notice will be rectified in the future, that is that there ought to be a separate account of small holdings. We ought to see precisely year after year what the position is in regard to these small holdings, how much money has to be advanced in the creation of them, how the loans are being repaid, and what the liabilities and arrears are, and I hope this will appear in future in the Report of the Board of Agriculture. Another point in connection with the accounts which is very important is that this Report deals with the year up to 31st December last, but the accounts only come up to March of last year, so we are asked at the end of the Session to deal with the accounts of the Board of Agriculture and we only have them up to March 31st of last year, or fifteen months behind the date. I see no reason in the world, as the Report is never as a rule published until April or May, why the accounts should not be brought up either to 31st December, so as to make it coincide with the Report itself, or else, if that is

    1421
    impossible for any reason, it might be brought up to 31st March when the financial year ends and the accounts are made up. It is very inconvenient to deal with a general account like this which is so very far behind the date which we are dealing with as this is now.
    I should like to say a word in connection with the position of Syre and Barra, which appear to me to be in a deplorable position altogether. Leaving out the question of the cost of sheep stock on both these estates, in the case of Syre, the total cost, purchase price, works, fencing, surveying, management, and law expenses has been £13,479. Up to Martinmas of 1911 we received, in the shape of annuities £140 a year, which I suppose will repay the purchase price of the property for that period. From that time there has been a resettlement, and the fair rents since that date have been fixed at £109, so that what you appear to get from Syre is £109 on an outlay of £13,479, but the owners' taxes and rates on that amount to £90, so that your net return for an expenditure of £13,479 is £19 a year plus the shooting rent, which, I understand, is £250. There is an example of economic management. There is an example of what happens when the State purchases property of this kind and lets it out to small holders and, as a rule, receives only a small portion of the rent, and very small rents at that. Take Barra, the other case. There the cost of the property was £12,438 up to this date. The annuities there from Martinmas, 1911, were £204. These have been commuted since that time to a fair rent of £92 a year. Again the owners' rates are £68, leaving a margin apparently of about £24 a year on an outlay of £12,438, and in this case, as far as I can make out, there is no shooting rent at all. So we have these two unfortunate cases staring us in the face. They are the first cases on this White Paper, and the figures I have given of the present rental and the rates upon the landlord are quite correct. The arrears on most of the estates are very heavy, and they seem to be increasing in all except one, so that we have a warning from that not to proceed with this policy. We might require to face a loss if we had the power to do it in such a place as the Lews, where the right hon. Gentleman is placed in a very great difficulty indeed. But we have had a very strong warning in the figures I have mentioned, which I think are correct, not to proceed, at all events, with this policy any further than you can help. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman may
    1422
    see his way to place these accounts, first of all, in a more up-to-date form if possible, and to give more detailed information than has hitherto been given. The whole of the incomes is put on one side and the whole of the expenditure on the other. The income includes all sorts of items, such as rents and annuities. Everything is lumped together. On the expenditure side repayments of loans, and one thing and another, are given in a way which makes it perfectly impossible, to make out whether the balance is on the right or the wrong side. If the accounts could be presented in a more unstandable form, it would be a great advantage. I think we should have each year proper and adequate detailed accounts of the position with respect to small holdings loans.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The Debate has ranged over a wide variety of topics, and I venture to think that on different grounds the Board of Agriculture has been somewhat unfairly attacked. As to the question of a forest administration area, the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) spoke somewhat strongly in condemnation of the policy of the Board. I cannot believe that they can have read the Report which was circulated, and that they have followed what has actually taken place in regard to the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. It appears from the Report that the Advisory Committee's recommendation was adopted by the Board. After they recived it, a request was made to the Treasury that immediate funds should be made available for the purchase and equipment of the area. Then the Committee's Report recommending the acquisition of the area was sent on to the Development Commissioners with the request which was made to the Treasury. It went to the Development Commissioners in December, 1913, and it remains in their hands. I do think that the House has reason to demand an explanation why so much delay has taken place, to ask what is going on at the present moment in connection with this matter, and to ask further what the Development Commissioners now propose to do.
    I have always taken the view that it is desirable that we should get as central an area as possible for demonstration purposes. Reference has been made this evening to the recommendations of the

    1423
    Departmental Committee. It was not stated to the House that one of the recommendations was that the area should be in a district of easy access by rail from the existing teaching centres, and that there should be provision within that area for dealing with different characters of timber. If the delay which is at present taking place is caused by further consideration of the matter, I hope we may very soon have some indication given to us of what are the views of the Development Commissioners. I am very doubtful whether leasehold is the best system on which an area of this kind should be acquired. Certainly much will depend upon the conditions and the length of the lease itself. I hope that, whatever scheme is adopted, it will fall in with the recommendations which have been made by the Departmental Committee, and that there will be no question of dealing with the interests of one university or district, but that it will be a scheme which will give satisfaction to Scotland as a whole, and to the students studying at the different centres.
    With regard to the work of the Board during the past year, I am bound to say that, the Report sets forth a record of great industry on their part, but it shows also that they have been greatly handicapped in many ways. When we consider that there were 8,132 applications, including applications for new holdings and the enlargement of existing holdings and that 5,017 of these applicants have been interviewed, we get some idea of the amount of labour which the officials of the Board have had in dealing with the question of small holdings. But the number of holdings constituted is undoubtedly discouraging. When one turns to the considerations which unquestionably have led to this somewhat disappointing result, I think it is fair to keep in view that the Board of Agriculture have had to act under great limitations and restrictions. In the first place, it has been very difficult for them to acquire suitable land for holdings in the districts where the applications have come from. Under the Act, as the Committee are well aware, the restrictions are somewhat severe in regard to the character of the land which can be acquired, both with respect to land under lease and in the case of farms not exceeding 150 acres. There are other restrictions as to certain classes of land which cannot be taken. These
    1424
    conditions necessarily restrict the area very considerably and often prevent land from being acquired in districts where it is specially desired. Apart from that, we have another very important consideration in the difficulties which have been placed in the way of the Board's action. I do not want to say anything too strong with reference to the action of Scottish landlords, because I believe there are many good landlords, although I think the Board has been somewhat unfortunate in having to deal with a good many difficult landlords who have been suspicious of the action of the Board since the beginning. We find set forth in the Report reasons to explain why in many instances the Board have been frustrated in their attempts to secure land. In these cases it has been owing to the action of the parties with whom they have had to deal. I do not wish to go into that in detail, but the fact is that these obstacles have been placed in the way of the Board, in many cases for the distinct purpose of frustrating the objects of the Board, and farms have been relet during the progress of the negotiations.
    What is, after all, the most important point raised in the Debate is the difficulty which has arisen in regard to the amount of compensation claimed by many of the landowners on whose land holdings were to be constituted. We have had the experience of three arbitrations which we may take as typical of the class of arbitration we shall have in the future, and without going into details of any one, I should like to state to the Committee that as the result of these we have had 96 holdings constituted over 23,128 acres at a cost of £26,387, or, in other words, it has cost £274 in compensation alone to constitute each individual holding. I would ask the Committee to consider that the chief item of compensation is for depreciation in the capital value of the estate. This amounts in the three cases to £13,449. That is the amount which, as the result of three arbitrations, has been pocketed by the proprietors in question in the name of depreciation in the value of their estates. Remember that the owners have been placed in as good a position as they were in before as regards letting value while continuing in possession of the estates. I think that it ought to be made clear that it was not the intention of the Statute that compensation should be awarded on such

    1425
    grounds, and the sooner we secure some Amendment of the Law the better.
    I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the position which prevails in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. In Lanarkshire we have had a considerable number of applications for small holdings. We have had some thing like 181 applications already. There have been only two schemes which have yet been reported, amounting to 158 acres and three new holdings. One, amounting to six acres, has been settled by agreement. It is very desirable in a district like Lanarkshire, where you have got a large number of persons engaged in industrial occupations, that the Board should take means to acquire land for the purpose of providing gardens and allotments and small holdings for those who are engaged in other callings. In connection with the new housing schemes which are being carried out, particularly at West Benhar, in Lanarkshire, where a whole village has been condemned and where new buildings are being put up, I hope the Board will take action to provide land for these purposes. Where it may not be possible to provide the buildings, at any rate, they should acquire the land, because there is a great deal of land hunger, and it is very desirable to encourage those who are in a position to spend a considerable portion of their time in carrying on the work of small holdings and gardens and fruit growing in connection with their other occupations. I hope that it may be possible to deal in future more rapidly with the applications which have come from the Lowland districts and that the Board of Agriculture and the Secretary for Scotland will keep in view the fact that we in the South of Scotland have quite as strong a claim upon their consideration in regard to the constitution of the new holdings as the other parts of Scotland.
    Mr. MORTON: I desire to say a few words on the one great question which we have to consider in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness Burghs in asking the Secretary for Scotland for some information with regard to the establishment of an agricultural institution in Inverness for the benefit of the Highland counties, and I hope that he will be able to say he will be in a position to do something to get that establishment started before long. I am quite aware
    1426
    that it would not be in order to discuss the Land Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, and the fact that that Bill is hanging about somewhere, and may, we hope, be advanced this year, prevents me from discussing the question of the Board of Agriculture in a way in which otherwise I might do, because, if the proposals in that Bill are carried into effect, we hope that it will apply the remedy. We have, unfortunately, to bring before this House year after year the Fisheries Board, and in this case the Board of Agriculture. I heard an hon. Gentleman refer just now to estates that do not come under the Smallholders Act at all, and, therefore, I suppose that the Board of Agriculture has nothing to do with that. There is no doubt that the question of the larger farms of Scotland is one which must be dealt with, but, meanwhile, we are only dealing with the small land holders, and on this I may say a word or two with regard to my Constituency of Sutherlandshire.
    The land question is the one question which is being considered in Sutherland at the present moment, and it has been so for many years, especially since the Act of 1911 was passed, which we hoped would do something for them. Practically but very little has been done for the county of Sutherland at all, yet that is the one question which they consider. They do not trouble themselves about the Ulster question, though they are very strong Protestants indeed, as they are satisfied that it will be settled otherwise, but they want this question settled. I would like to tell the Secretary for Scotland that, notwithstanding what has been done, or what is proposed to be done in the Bill now before this House, we must have more money if we are to settle the land question in Scotland, not money to give away in Grants, but, by way of loans at a low rate of interest; otherwise we cannot meet the agricultural position at all. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who I have no doubt will be in office for many years to come, will bear that in mind. I know that Scotland has been badly treated in regard to money, and I was not, therefore, surprised to hear another Member representing Edinburgh mention that in some Development Grant England had got about £70,000 last year, Ireland had got about £20,000, and Scotland had got only about £4,000. That is the way Scotland is neglected. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will try to see that that is remedied. One thing they do not

    1427
    forget in regard to Scotland is to come and collect the taxes there. They always come and collect them there earlier in the year than in other places. The land question in Sutherlandshire and in all the Highland counties is in a different position from the land question in other parts of Scotland, because the land was annexed or stolen from the clans, a hundred or two hundred years ago, and that was borne in mind, of course, when the Crofters Act of 1886 was passed, which dealt with the land question in the crofting counties in a different way from anywhere else.
    I have always been sorry that we had not a separate Land Act dealing with the Highlands of Scotland. There is the fact that the land was taken from them, whereas one time it belonged to the clan who paid no doubt a tribute to the chief. That is a reason why we should always bear in mind that these crofters ought to have an opportunity of getting relief. I do not trouble myself much about purchase which we have heard of to-day. Purchase so far has not been successful, because as a rule, no matter who deals with it, they give too much money, and consequently the settlers are unable to pay their rent or make a living out of the land. Therefore, it is not satisfactory. No doubt it would be quite correct if the Government took the land at a fair price, so as to be able to let it in a way in which it would turn out useful for the people. We have to remember what has occurred in the Highland counties in connection with the demand for land in Sutherland at the present moment. Next week they are going to hold a demonstration to recall the wicked and cruel evictions which occurred in Sutherland in the year 1814, and probably the only question which will be talked of there will be the land, and the land for the people, at a fair rent with fixity of tenure. If you let it go too long they may not be able to pay so much, or not willing to do it, but, at any rate, we have the right to ask that these matters should be attended to by Parliament. I am not blaming the Secretary for Scotland in the matter because I do not suppose that he has the power to compel the Government to lend to us, but I do say that we are entitled to have these matters attended to. Scotland, and especially the Highland counties of Scotland, are the best managed and most law-abiding of any part of the United Kingdom, but that ought not to be a reason for neglecting
    1428
    them, rather it ought to be a reason for giving them prompt attention.
    Unlike the other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland pays a very large revenue of the country, larger than she ought to pay. I think that ought to be borne in mind by the Secretary for Scotland when he demands from the Government funds to carry out this work. I do not want to make any serious complaint with regard to the Board of Agriculture, because it has been admitted that they have not the necessary powers. A Bill is now before the House to deal with that question. I am not quite satisfied that the Board of Agriculture has got the right men to manage these matters, and I trust that the Secretary for Scotland will get rid of some of them and fill their places with those who can carry out the Act, as we hoped and believed it was intended by Parliament it should be carried out, when they passed it. These are most important questions to the Scottish people, most important in preventing depopulation of the country, in settling the people on the land, and in giving them an opportunity of living in better conditions. I have no hesitation in saying that if the people of Sutherland could get possession of the land at a fair rent that county alone could support double the population that it has at the present moment, besides which they would be able to supply a good many articles of food for which you now go to foreign countries. All these things ought to be thought of, and in the words of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, "We should colonise our own country." We have done a great deal for foreign countries and I suppose for foreign tariffs. What have foreign tariffs done for us? Nothing at all. We have a right to demand that something shall be done for the people of this country before we deal with the people of Africa, or somewhere else a long way off. That is one of the difficulties we have to deal with. But let us hope that there is a good time coming, and that at any rate if Parliament will only do what we expect, namely, pass the Bill to amend this Act with regard to small-holders, we may then hope and trust that something will at last be done to allow the people of Scotland, especially in the crofting districts, the opportunity of getting a decent livelihood for themselves and their families.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I listened with some considerable interest this afternoon to the

    1429
    hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson), who complained of the slowness of the operation of this Act, and of the small number of holdings that have been created. He went on to claim joint author ship of the Act, but I am afraid that my view of his joint workmanship will not quite correspond with his own. I think the slowness of the creation of small holdings is largely due to the alterations made in the original Bill, in deference to the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I remember very well that arrangements were made outside the Committee, and then announced to the Committee, for dealing with the Small Land Holders Bill. I denounced those arrangements, and I pointed out that I feared they would interfere most seriously with the working of the Act, that they would delay its operation, and that they would lead to enormously increased expense. I did my best to oppose the alterations, and I cannot associate myself at all with the joint work of the hon. Member. As hon. Members know who have been attending the Committee upstairs, we have been engaged for many weeks upon a Bill for the Amendment of the Act, and the need for that Bill is entirely caused by the alterations which were made in the original Bill by hon. Members opposite, against the views of supporters of the Bill on this side of the House. I do not wish to go further into that question, but I desire to refer to a subject which was raised by the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott), who urged very strongly that there should be some great scheme of forestry for Scotland. I think, perhaps, the hon. Member was not quite understood in regard to what he intended to convey. As I understood him, he did not wish to have a large and expensive scheme entered upon at once. What he did intend to convey, as I gathered, was that an experimental area should be obtained in which could be planted trees that could be grown economically and would yield a return within a reasonable period. My own view is that it would be a very unwise and enormous waste of public money to take any considerable area in Scotland for the purpose of forestry. Our knowledge is too limited at present, and before we enter upon any scheme of any magnitude we should obtain an experimental area in order to gather information as to what trees can
    1430
    be grown economically—that is to say, which would yield a return after a period in Scotland.
    I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will not take any precipitate action in the taking of great areas in Scotland, and I hope we shall remain content with the establishing, as soon as possible, an experimental area, which I think would be of immense use for the whole of Scotland, if it were established in a central position where it can be reached from Glasgow and Edinburgh, and if the land obtained would grow trees that could be grown in every district of Scotland. I wish to come to the main point, and that is the question of small holdings. I think the Report which we received from the Board of Agriculture is a very interesting one, and I congratulate the Secretary for Scotland and the Board upon it, I think it gives evidence of very great activity, and I think that the Act has been tried with vigour, energy, and zeal. I only regret that the efforts of the Board have not been more successful in the creation of small holdings. But the reason for that is made perfectly clear in the Report itself, namely, the hampering conditions and embarrassment under which the Board has had to act. There is no doubt that had the Board had better machinery and better and fuller powers, with larger funds at its disposal, it would have been able to accomplish a great deal more than it has done. I am not going for one moment to blame the Board or the Secretary for Scotland in regard to any deficiencies as to what we hope would have been done. I think the cause is perfectly plain, and the Bill to amend the Act which is now before the House, and which I hope will certainly be passed at an early date, is absolutely essential if progress is to be made in the creation of small holdings in Scotland. There were last year applications for small holdings to the extent of 5,382, and this year they have increased to 8,132, while during the period under review we have created only 214, which includes enlargements, and at that rate it would take forty years to comply with present demands, which are by no means the limit of the applications. Last year we were led to hope that 500 would be created during the year. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the moment it is known a scheme is going to be started in the neighbourhood around applications come in, and that will be so I am perfectly

    1431
    certain all over Scotland. I am glad to see that in the Lothian area the number of applications has increased, and we may expect a very large increase in the number of small holdings in the Lothian area as soon as this point of establishing small holdings becomes a practical one and schemes are taken in hand. The Board have pointed out some of the difficulties they have found in their way in the creation of small holdings. One of the greatest difficulties has been the fact that on the increase of compensation to a sum exceeding £300 it is possible for the land owner to call in arbitration. That was a Clause which I very strongly opposed, and we were more than justified in predicting that it would be detrimental to the working of the Act. I do not propose to go into details as to the compensation awarded in connection with estates upon which holdings have been established, but I do think it really amounts to a grave and gross scandal that the enormous sums which have been awarded in those cases should be paid because of the prejudice against small holdings.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GREY: They were not paid because of any prejudice, but because of damage, as fair compensation.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in the case of Lindean not only was the owner receiving a larger rent than he received before, but he also received £4,100 simply because of the dislike of small holdings, and for no other reason. He suffered no damage in the enjoyment of his estate, and if he were a patriotic man he ought to be pleased at having small owners on the land in a prosperous condition and not regard them as detrimental to his estate. I have got here a letter from one of a party who visited Lindean in connection with meetings of the Chamber of Agriculture, and the feeling was generally expressed that it was impossible to understand how anybody could object to small holdings on that estate as a prejudice. There is a very interesting article in the "Scottish Farmer," an authority which up to that time had taken a very hostile view to the possibilities of the success of small holdings in Lindean, but on a personal inspection at Lindean and learning the circumstances of the small holders, I am glad to think that the "Scottish Farmer" was entirely converted to the wisdom of
    1432
    the operation. It was able to congratulate the Board, and I should like to do so upon the successful inauguration of that scheme. In a laudatory article the paper says:—
    "We have some difficulty in understanding how these twelve holdings on Lindean, when in full working order, will depreciate the value of the property on which they are planted, nor is it easy to see how their existence interferes with the amenities of Sunderland Hall."
    One of the Scottish farmers on the point as to how very satisfactory those buildings were from the point of view of amenity, says:—
    "Next day the whole of the company, nearly 200 in forty-eight motors, passed through Heriotfield and saw the new buildings in course of erection. I am bound to say I cannot conceive any place more suitable or more likely to succeed. In view of all this, what a farce the claims for compensation are. There is not the slightest disturbance of amenity. The new colony is a clear mile or more away from Scott-Plumer's house and cannot be seen from there, and if they were in view there could be no prettier sight."
    I think the landowners of Scotland ought to welcome as a pleasant, agreeable, and patriotic sight a community of small holders taking life upon their property. When they claim a sum of over £4,000 because of the prejudice created by having those prosperous small holdings upon that property, I do think they are not taking a patriotic line. I think they are taking a line which must be curbed by Statute, and that we must prevent those gigantic and intolerable sums being paid from small holdings merely because of the prejudices of a certain class. Anybody who has been in Switzerland or the Tyrol will not think it a disagreeable sight to see attractive little farms flourishing all round. It ought to gratify any true patriot to see such a sight, and to see happy and flourishing homes of people growing up in his neighbourhood. An hon. Member opposite smiles at that, but I mean what I say. I think it does no credit to the patriotism of the landowners in question to put in those preposterous claims, and I think it does us no credit in this House that it should have been possible under a system which we have established, and for which the hon. Member for Central Glasgow has taken credit, that such claims should be able to be enforced. I have referred to the success of these holdings because they have been criticised most adversely, and I am glad to think that that criticism has been disproved by fifty or more of the most prominent agrculturists in Scotland. I regret extremely that the efforts of the Board have been curtailed for want of funds in cases where small holders have made requests for loans to assist them in

    1433
    rebuilding their houses, and I would particularly call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, because I believe this to be some of the most beneficent work the Board could undertake. Reference is made to the matter in the Report on page 15. One of the best effects of the original Crofters Act was to be seen in the enormously improved housing accommodation. In the Isle of Skye, for instance, within a very few years a sum of £150,000 was spent in improving the houses of the poor crofters, and all over the Highlands, I understand, that two-thirds at least of the dwellings, including some steadings, have been rebuilt as soon as they were able to borrow money for the purpose. Here these small holders are extremely desirous to get assistance for improving their dwellings.
    I would particularly ask the Secretary for Scotland to give his consent to a larger sum being devoted to this purpose and, if necessary, obtain larger funds. For England we have a Housing Bill under which large sums of public money are to be advanced for the purpose of houses being built by a Government Department. Here we have the owners themselves only too anxious to take up the duty and the burden of improving their own dwellings if only they can get the money. The Board report that they would be only too pleased to extend their operations in this direction, but that owing to the limitation of their funds they have been obliged to restrict their operations to what were formerly congested districts. They have had many applications outside those districts, but on account of want of funds, and other demands in connection with small holdings, they have been obliged to limit their loans in this respect. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there could not be a more beneficent or more secure expenditure than that of allowing these men to borrow money on fair terms for the improvement of their own dwellings. That operation is now curtailed simply for want of funds.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I understand that it is. May I read what the Board say?—
    "So great, indeed, was the initial demand, that it was thought prudent at the outset"—
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: "At the outset."
    Mr. MOLTENO: I understand that that still prevails.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I am glad that that assurance can be given.
    "Owing to the geographical restriction mentioned above, it was found necessary in the meantime to refuse applications from persons residing outside the scheduled area, but, on the other hand, the Hoard have seen their way to grant no fewer than 134 separate applications, involving the rebuilding of 105 dwelling houses. …"
    I read that statement as meaning that they were still obliged considerably to restrict this operation; but if the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not so, I am very glad to hear it. I hope that every encouragement will be given to the extension of the operations of the Board under that head. I do not think we shall have a satisfactory administration of the Small Landholders Act until we have a Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench responsible to Parliament for the operations under the Act. I cannot conceive how it could be possible for the Secretary for Scotland, burdened as he is with the administration of the whole of Scotland, to add to his other duties the immense labour involved in initiating and carrying on operations under this Act. The Act not only establishes a Board of Agriculture, but it is to resettle small holders in Scotland—an enormous operation. What do we find elsewhere? I regard to Ireland we find a very active Vice-President on the Treasury Bench. We all know what the condition of Irish agriculture is. We know what the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has done. We know that it commands enormous funds—hundreds of thousands of pounds—three or four times as much as our Board commands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Legislation!"] I am informed that legislation is not necessary, but that, by an administrative act, a Minister could be placed on the Treasury Bench to be responsible for the proceedings under this Act. I urge most strongly that that should be done.
    We have seen the benefit of such an arrangement in the case of Ireland. The Minister is here to answer questions, to-back up his officials, to encourage them, and to fight for them, and, when the fight comes for the money, he is on the spot and can speak with authority. Such a Minister would be in touch with Scotland. We all know the enormous amount of detail involved in matters of this kind. It is essential that the Minister should be constantly in touch with those who are actually carrying out the operations under an Act of this kind. It cannot be satisfactory that the Minister should be situated in London while the operations

    1435
    have to go on in Scotland. I have nothing to say against the present Secretary for Scotland. I think he has acted in an unexceptionable manner in regard to this matter. He has devoted an enormous amount of time and labour to it, but I feel certain that the work is too great for any man to take on his shoulders in addition to the work already involved in the administration of Scotland. In England we have a Minister for Agriculture who is concerned only with agricultural development. In Scotland we have a great land problem to be settled. Scotland is in a different position from that of any other portion of the United Kingdom. Scotland has only 78,000 small holders all told. Ireland has over 500,000, and England has an enormous number. The whole problem is different in Scotland. The people are not on the land. They have to be put there, and it is a much more difficult problem to put men afresh on the land than to keep there those who are already on it, and improve their property.
    Therefore, I maintain that if we are really to make this Act what it ought to be, and to meet the incessant demands of Scotland, we must have a more active administration of the Act. The demand is not being met at present. A mere matter of 200 small holders a year is really ridiculous. It is like baling out the ocean with a teaspoon to treat the agricultural problem of Scotland as being settled by an operation of that kind. We have held this Act up to the people of Scotland as a panacea for all their difficulties, and so it is. They have accepted it as such, and now, when they have come forward in their thousands to take advantage of it, we say to them, "In forty years you may get a holding." That is not practical politics. Moreover, it is very injurious to the country. We have an enormous emigration. The population is diminishing in number. You have the most skilful agricultural population in the whole world being driven out from their homeland, because of the failure to make this Act respond to the demands made upon it. There is no reason why, with this machinery together with proper and adequate funds—and no more profitable investment could be made—we should not settle 1,500 or 2,000 persons yearly in Scotland in a position to make themselves prosperous and happy homes. If the right hon. Gentleman has any influence, I hope he will mention to the Prime Minister, as
    1436
    I have done, the urgent need for the Board of Agriculture to be represented on the Treasury Bench by a Minister who can speak with authority in this House.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The condition of the House and the course of this Debate remind me forcibly of the famous phrase in one of Bacon's Essays, "'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, but did not stay for an answer." Many Members have made speeches and asked questions, and they all appeared very much interested in the subject, but there are very few here to listen to the answer. I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik) is here, because I have several things to say to him. But I think it is rather an accident that he is here in time. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) asked several questions about education—
    Sir H. CRAIK: Where is he?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think he has an engagement. Before I reply to his questions I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend who last addressed the Committee (Mr. Molteno). I say to him quite frankly that I agree with all he has said as to the desirability of having a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries officially in Scotland. I am quite prepared to admit, and, indeed, to assert, that it is quite impossible for one man to look after all the other Departments and also this new Department of Agriculture, which never belonged to the Secretary for Scotland until the last two years, and which, with fisheries, would very profitably occupy the time of one Member of this House. The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked me a question about education, and the same class of question was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow University. Why was it, asked the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that the Board of Education had applied to the Development Commissioners to have certain Grants for intermediate education in agriculture? The answer to that is that the work that they are entrusted with is in connection with agricultural teaching in the secondary schools. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire and the hon. Member for Inverness both asked questions about a school for the training of small holders, which it has been suggested might be instituted on the Board of Agriculture's own land

    1437
    near to Inverness, and the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire asked me to give him the latest information on the subject.
    As the hon. Member is aware a deputation from Inverness came to see me a few weeks ago and made certain suggestions as to this institute, and the Board of Agriculture are about to make arrangements to meet those gentlemen, or some of them, in Inverness in order to learn from them how much help—I do not mean only financial help—put other kinds of help they could guarantee if this institution were created. That matter, therefore, is being carefully considered. I am sorry to say that the application we made to the Development Commissioners has not yet resulted in anything. It may result in something in the future, but at the present time it has not done so. I now come to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen University. Aberdeen, Mr. Lyall, is a wonderful place. The claims of Aberdeen are never neglected. But what Aberdeen was disturbed about to-day I cannot learn from the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He seemed to me to mix up the question of the University of Edinburgh and the college of agriculture there, and the question of the demonstration area, so that I really could not understand what he was driving at. What are the facts? The facts are simply these: The College of Agriculture in Edinburgh are about to obtain some land and the governors considered whether they should not put their educational institution on that land instead of keeping it in Edinburgh. So far as I know no agreement has been come to on that point. I believe that the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture thinks it would be a good thing if they used this land, but how Aberdeen should consider this an injury to them I do not know! We would all be prepared to say that it would be a good thing if the standard of agricultural education were raised. Anything that tended to raise it would have our support. But why, because Edinburgh raises the standard of education, there should be any jealousy shown by Aberdeen I do not know. Let us not have jealousy; let us have emulation. If Edinburgh raises her standard of education, let Aberdeen and Glasgow follow!
    As to the question of afforestation, we have been in communication with the Development Commissioners, and the Development Commissioners have agreed to assist us to appoint three new advisory
    1438
    officers for forestry. These will assist owners with advice in regard to planting, and will perform other duties which are performed by advisory officers in other parts. Of course, a good deal of time has been spent in looking for a demonstration area, but I can discuss the subject with a perfectly clear conscience. I have done all I could to assist it and nothing to hinder it. A Committee was appointed before I occupied my present office. They brought forward a Report, valuable and interesting in many respects, but which did not suggest any particular area. Soon after I came into office I appointed an Advisory Committee, and that Advisory Committee made it its first duty to look for a suitable area. They took some time. I do not blame them. It is a difficult search. They had to find a place that was suitable for educational demonstration purposes, and they took until something approaching the end of last year—I forget the exact date—when they presented a Report to me. I considered it without delay and put it before the Development Commissioners. The Development Commissioners had two objections to the selection of the Committee. They thought the land was not sufficiently central in position, and they thought that it did not include a sufficient variety of timber. They may have had other reasons for objecting to it, but they were not prepared to give us the money. Now I understand that they have been considering the thing and looking over several areas. Though I have no official information from them, I believe that a report from them is on its way to the Board of Agriculture making some suggestions as to the area, about which, of course, I naturally can say nothing until I have seen the proposals. I do not know what the exact nature of the proposals are, but the hon. Member for Aberdeen University made two statements which I think he ought not to have made. I do not quite understand how he can say that the Committee's action was unanimous when it was well known that one member was strongly opposed to the recommendation. It is perfectly well known that he is opposed to it. He never made any concealment about the matter.
    Sir H. CRAIK: He did not vote against it.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not going to make a great point about it, because the bulk of the Committee made the recommendation put forward and relying upon that, and having considered the

    1439
    matter we came to the conclusion that there was no better scheme before us. I brought that scheme, on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, before the Development Commissioners, and I do not think it is treating the matter quite fairly to bring in the name of the Lord Chancellor. There is no ground for doing it; that sort of thing ought not to be done without sufficient reason. The Lord Chancellor has never interfered in the matter at all, and has never said a single word to me about it. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked me a pointed question as to what was the real reason of the delay in setting up small holdings.
    Mr. PRICE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"]—before he passes to the query of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, what information he can give us on the last named point. Before the demonstration area is definitely settled will the Board have any veto; or will they be compelled to accept the recommendations of the Development Commissioners?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think I am compelled to accept the Commissioner's recommendations. I have been asked a question as to what the Development Commissioners have got to do with that matter. They have got a good deal to do with it, because they have the money. I cannot buy a demonstration area out of £200,000, and we must get the money from them. If England and Ireland have got money, I do not see why Scotland ought not to have some. As to the question of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, several hon. Members have suggested that lack of money was responsible for the delay in setting up the small holdings. A long time ago I said that I had no doubt that if more money was required for the purpose the Government would provide it. The fact is what I complain of is that we have not been able to spend our money quickly enough, we have not been able to get our schemes through, and I must in justice to the Board of Agriculture and in my own defence, point out the reason of that. This Bill we are told to-day expressed the composite work and was the joint production of the combined wisdom of both parties, but it is because the machinery provided in this Bill is cumbrous, costly, and unwieldy, that no better progress has been made. Who would
    1440
    imagine when Parliament set up an independent Court to consider this question that the most important part of the subject—questions of compensation to landlord and tenant—is taken away from that Court and given to an arbitrator, now to one and now to another, and all the experience of that Court is thrown away. The hon. Member for South Lanark lamented that they had not piled up a body of precedents. So do I. And the reason is because, by the action of the Party opposite, they have been allowed to delay the Land Court.
    Major HOPE: On a point of Order, are we now discussing legislation?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am discussing the Act of Parliament I have to administer.
    Major HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman is discussing possible legislation.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lyell): I do not think the Secretary for Scotland is out of order in discussing the administration of the present Act. It would be out of order to discuss the possible amendment of that Act.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I carefully avoided doing that.
    Mr. WATSON: My remark was about the want of explanation of the principle in regard to the reduction of rent. That has nothing to do with settlement compensation.
    Major HOPE: Is it in order to condemn past legislation, as the Secretary for Scotland is now doing?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is nothing sacrosanct about past legislation.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: What is the position? You bring your case before the Court, the parties interested bring their evidence before the Court. You proceed to make your plan. At the present time, on the insufficient information which you have, you have no power to prosecute it, unless people give it to you voluntarily, and I shall have something to say upon that point, and when you have done all that, and the Court is seized of the information in this matter, in which economy is a vital interest, you put aside all that work and you go to a person who, up to this point, knows nothing about it, however competent he may be, and you go over the same process again. The cost of the

    1441
    Lindean arbitration was £90 a head to the small holders. Is anybody surprised more progress is not made, and that progress is slow when your machinery is so cumbrous?
    Major HOPE: It is your own machinery.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite said. He said, "No, it is our joint Bill." The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the late Lord Advocate said when this principle of arbitration was introduced that it would make the Bill unworkable—that it would "Smother the Bill" was the expression he used. And everybody knows perfectly well it is most disingenuous to pretend anything else than that that was forced upon us in another place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow raised the question of some criticism of the Board of Agriculture on the part of the Land Court, and he pointed out that the Land Court said that when the case was heard the promoters presented an amended scheme with the number of holdings reduced or increased according to the circumstances. What is the reason of that? The reason is that the landlords and factors will not give the information very often, and it is only when we come into Court that we get the information we want. And then they turn round and blame us for altering the scheme. I do not take the whole of this paragraph as being censure of the Board of Agriculture. They point out some of the schemes are prepared without sufficient consideration in detail. Quite so; we have not got the details. I am not going to refer to legislation, but it is evident we must have some legislation in order to get the details. It is said by one or two Members that we ought to purchase. The hon. Member for Blackfriars said it, and the hon. Member for South Lanark, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs said we ought to purchase. They do not mean the same thing. The hon. Member for Blackfriars thought we ought to purchase land for small holdings and let it out to the tenants. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs pointed out that my predecessor at the Scotch Office, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, tried some experiments, and he pointed out how unfortunate they were. I had not time to check his figures.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: It was equally unfortunate in Sutherlandshire.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The fact is, State ownership makes bad tenants. We find tenants do not pay us or get into arrear. If you were to go through with the plan of the hon. Baronet opposite, I do not see how you are going to meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Blackfriars, because we have not got people with money in their pockets to buy the land, and it is very doubtful whether it is desirable to burden people not possessed of wealth who have not more than enough money to stock their holdings with mortgages and deeds. It is far better they should pay rent coupled with security of tenure. So I do not think the alternative of purchase and resale, or purchase and letting, is one at the present moment which I should be very willing to recommend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow brought forward a case of which I had not heard. It was the case of taking a farm which he said was worth £1,500 or £2,000 a year. I never heard of it. I asked my advisers, and they have not heard of it. I wonder was that the case of Ballifettrish, where only 137 acres was taken for new holdings and for enlarging, and the arbitrator gave compensation to the tenant of £1,243 for a loss of profits on 137 acres—£113 per holding, with an eight years' term of lease, yet unexpired, or £9 an acre! I am told the land is probably worth £3 an acre. These are the principles of compensation that follow from arbitration.
    The hon. Member opposite said he wished the Land Court had laid down some reasonable principle on which these things might be settled at an earlier date, but, if these are to be the awards, I am very anxious about the terms on which agreements would be possible. The hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) expressed the opinion that we should only provide for those in the district, and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, looking at the matter from a more practical point of view, brought up the case of Lewis. If the Board of Agriculture cannot put the people from Lewis on to the Island of Skye, where are we going to put them. You cannot settle them in Lewis itself. I cannot accept the principle that you must never arrange for putting people out of their own district. One of our greatest difficulties is that people do not want to go out of their own district. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) and other hon. Members urged with great force that, instead of having one, two, or three small

    1443
    holders and putting them down by themselves, you ought to try and have a group of them together, because it would be more economical and better for development and co-operation. I entirely agree with that, but you cannot do it if you are going to keep men, in any strict sense, in their own district. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire found that this was so when he came to discuss the matter, and his suggestion is a very valuable one. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Major Hope) criticised some of our figures, and expressed astonishment that we had only spent £11,700 on live stock, general development, and education. The hon. and gallant Member is entirely mistaken in that figure, because that is by no means the limit of the amount we have spent on those purposes. We have spent a great deal more than that on education alone. If I could get money from other sources I should keep more money for the purpose of small holdings, but instead of having only spent £11,700 upon the purposes referred to, as a matter of fact we have spent nearly £50,000 on those purposes this year.
    Major HOPE: Is that out of the Education Vote?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Some of it comes out of the Education Vote, but where the hon. and gallant Member is wrong is in making out that we were only spending that paltry sum on all those purposes, because the actual sum is four or five times larger than he stated.
    Major HOPE: It is not shown in the Board of Agriculture accounts.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It could not be shown in the account of the fund out of which it did not come, and that is a very curious principle of accounting for the hon. and gallant Member to suggest. I admit that we ought to be making more progress, but I will give one other result of a recent arbitration. Hon. Members know what the selling value is, and yet what is the result? I will take three farms in South Lewis. We gave £2,950 for the buildings, £2,600 for shootings, £1,430 for other purposes, £1,000 for depreciation of the fishing, and £4,639 for depreciation in the value of the estate. There are hon. Gentlemen opposite who know the value of property in South Lewis, and I would like to ask them what justification is there for a depreciation of £4,639 due to the creation of small holdings. There is
    1444
    another surprising item. The sum of £500 is given because it is supposed that schools will be required, and rates will have to be paid for those schools. Did anyone ever contemplate that a sum like that would be brought into the account?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what the owner's rates are? The whole of the rent practically goes back in rates.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think that is the point, and that has nothing to do with the question of the loss of selling value owing to the creation of small holdings. It is impossible under these conditions to go on creating small holdings.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The rates are a public burden, and they would reduce the capital value of the estate if increased.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: You have £500 given for that purpose.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Given quite rightly.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Now we know where we are. What is the use of pretending that you want small holdings created in Scotland, if enormous fines like that are to be paid by the public authority? I do not propose to discuss that branch of the subject any further, because I might be tempted to go into the question of future legislation, but I think the Committee has seen what the difficulties are with which the Board of Agriculture has had to deal, and how serious are their responsibilities. I must say that I think before we can promise to deal with due expedition and due economy with the creation of small holders in Scotland, there must be more simplicity in the administration, and we must not have the work done twice over. The work must really be committed to one authority to come to a determination, not only as to fair rents, but as to compensation, and we must have some understanding that the compensation we have to pay must not exceed the fee simple value of the whole estate.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The right hon. Gentleman has chosen in his reply to indulge in some perfectly irrelevant remarks. What has the conduct of the Board of Agriculture to do with the action of the arbiters under this Act? I wish simply to refer to the answer the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to make to the criticism which I raised upon the area of afforestation, and the action of the Board

    1445
    of Agriculture in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman says I have no right to refer to the fact that one Member of the Departmental Committee dissented from the rest of his colleagues.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member is entirely misrepresenting me. I said he had no right to refer to the Lord Chancellor, who has nothing to do with the matter.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I adhere to every word I said, both with regard to that Member of the Departmental Committee and the Lord Chancellor and his party. I wish further to say that the right hon. Gentleman chose to omit a very material fact, namely, that the matter of the choice of the afforestation area was left to the Development Board. He forgot to toll us that the member of the Departmental Committee who dissented from all his colleagues is a member of the Development Board, with no right to any opinion on the question at all. In these circumstances, I have no alternative but to move the reduction.
    Mr. PIRIE: I can quite understand the irritation of the Secretary for Scotland, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) should have brought out a fact which the Scottish Office have tried to keep in the background ever since this scandal took place. It is high time that these scandals which take place were made known, though I can quite understand the irritation at that sort of thing being made public.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: What scandal?
    Mr. PIRIE: The action of this individual who stood alone from self-interested motives.
    Captain MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to make a personal attack on a Member of the Development Commission who is unable in any circumstances to defend himself?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of taste and not of order, I think.
    Mr. PIRIE: I am repeating what is perfectly well known by everyone who takes an interest in this question. It is the talk of everyone, both in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The truth is sometimes unpleasant to hear. It is high time the opportunity was taken in the few minutes we have of discussing the Scottish matters to make these things more widely known among the people of Scotland. I congratulate the hon. Member upon having brought the fact out, and I am not in the least surprised at the irritation of the Scottish Office, who have a shuffling way of avoiding these matters. I shall certainly support the hon. Member in the reduction, and vote with him.
    Mr. BOOTH: I congratulate my hon. Friend upon his belated appearance, but I cannot congratulate him upon the way in which he has intervened in the Debate. He alluded to the few minutes devoted to the question, but I would remind him that earlier in the evening, when he was not here, a count was taken.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £221,000, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 207.

    Division No. 204.]

    AYES.

    [9.59 p.m.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Malcolm, Ian

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bird, Alfred

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boyton, James

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Stanier, Beville

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Cassel, Felix

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Hills, John Waller

    Younger, Sir George

    Currie, George W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    H. Craik and Mr. Pirie.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Alden, Percy

    Arnold, Sydney

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barnes, George N.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Dowd, John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Malley, William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shee, James John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Suilivan, Timothy

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brace, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hinds, John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hodge, John

    Pratt, J. W.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Radford, G. H.

    Clough, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Crooks, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cullinan, John

    Kelly, Edward

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    King, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    De Forest, Baron

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Delany, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clithcroe)

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Doris, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Sutton, John E.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    M'Kean, John

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Wardle, George J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Waring, Walter

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Webb, H.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Meagher, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Falconer, James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    White, Patrick (Heath, North)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molloy, Michael

    Wiles, Thomas

    Field, William

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Fiavin, Michael Joseph

    Morrell, Philip

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morison, Hector

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Neilson, Francis

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Hackett, John

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Hancock, John George

    Nolan, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.—(Class II.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,497, 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, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants-in-Aid of Piers or
    1448
    Quays." [Note.—£8,000 has been voted on account.]
    Captain WARING: I want to say a few words on the position of the Scottish fisheries, with special reference to the Report recently issued by the Departmental Committee on the North Seas Fisheries. I think, in the first place, I may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having kept this inquiry going until within a few months of the natural

    1449
    end of this Parliament; the appointment of another Committee by the Fishery Board to inquire into the conditions obtaining in the North and West of Scotland reduced the whole system to a fine art which could hardly be surpassed. I have been the recipient of many complaints along the coast as to the method in which evidence has been collected by this Committee, and the way in which the witnesses were examined, and I may also say that allegations have been made of bias on the part of certain members of the Committee. I hope, however, to-night we shall hear someone speaking from the other point of view, and that we may possibly find that this allegation is ill-founded. This Report, so far as it deals with loans to fishermen, is really not worth the paper on which it is printed. But I am glad it begins by saying that there is no reason why the State should not enter into undertakings of this kind, provided always it is shown that private enterprise fails to give reasonable facilities. But then the Committee go on to attempt to prove that the fishermen are in a particularly favourable position, by reason of the fact that the banks advance money to them at an average rate of 4 per cent. That is perfectly true, and our complaint is not in any way against the banks. What the Committee fails to lay particular stress upon is the fact that the banks only advance money to an amount which is equal to one-third of the total value of a drifter, and that it is necessary for fishermen to go to landowners to make up the necessary funds. The Committee also failed to inform the public that the average rate at which these private men advance money is considerably more than 4 per cent. I will take the Banff and Buckie District of the Moray Firth, in which a round sum of £58,500 is loaned by private individuals and by private firms. Of this sum £3,000 is lent at the rate of 4½ per cent. £22,000 odd at 5 per cent., and £32,000 odd at more than 5 per cent., the latter sum including £3,300 at 7½ per cent. My point in this connection is this, that not one single pound of that money is lent at as low a rate as 4 per cent., and yet that is the only figure which is mentioned in the Report, so far as this part of the subject is concerned. Perhaps some explanation may be forthcoming to show why this rather important information was passed over with only a very vague reference.
    1450
    The Report and Minutes of Evidence show how anxious the Committee were to stifle the whole question of loans to fishermen. But they have not been so successful in showing that the conditions imposed by some of these private lenders are not irksome—indeed, they had to admit that there might possibly be some ground for complaint in this respect, although, in reading through the evidence, I see it is suggested that the point would appear to have been slightly exaggerated. There is a most significant paragraph in this Report which throws a rather curious sidelight on this branch of the subject, and that is where the Committee most gratuitously, to my mind, throw cold water on the idea that co-operation should be started among fishermen. This is what they say:—
    "Hence it is of little use to suggest that the fishermen should imitate the farmers and co-operate for the purpose of selling their fish and obtaining their stores, unless by such means they could also provide funds for the purchase of the steam vessels. Any such general move on the part of the fishermen would lead to a large withdrawal of the merchants' capital, and at present the fishermen could not do without it."
    Why, when these merchants are apparently getting a good return in the way of interest for money they have invested on very good security, do they wish to withdraw their capital in the event of cooperation being started among the fishermen? The only reason can be that the greater portion of the profit they derive comes from the goods they sell to the fishermen, and if co-operation is started they will lose control of the tied boat. We hear in these days of the tied cottage, but a tied cottage is child's play compared with the tied boat. These gentlemen, when they are declaiming against the principle of State loans, which has been urged so frequently by certain Members on this side of the House, hold up the bogey of bad debts, insufficient security, in the interests of the taxpayers. When, on the other hand, they are lauding the existing system, they tell us that the fisherman has no right to expect a particularly low rate of interest, for the reason that a man will frequently be well enough off to be able to pay off in ten years a mortgage on a drifter costing £3,000. Whatever may be the truth in either of those statements—I am not going to argue the point—surely the Committee could not hope to have it both ways. In spite of the fact of the bullying of the witnesses when they went before this Committee—the most casual observer of the evidence will see that no counsel with a brief could have

    1451
    taken more trouble to trip up any witness who came before him who was brave enough to speak up in favour of State assistance and in spite of the obvious bias of certain members of the Committee, I venture to say they have failed altogether to make out any case against the State assistance that we have proposed.
    The money which would be required would be a drop in the ocean compared with what has been spent in Ireland on rural development, and would be less than is going to be spent annually on the establishment of small agricultural holdings in Scotland. Hon. Members this afternoon have been pleading for more money for that purpose. What we asked for, and what we are entitled to, is that the rural fishermen of Scotland should receive the same treatment as other sections of the community. If the village fisher population of Scotland is to be maintained at all, and if the Government are in favour of maintaining the rural population already in existence, I am convinced that some scheme, such as has been adopted by almost every other European country, must be started here. I can assure the light hon. Gentleman of one thing, that this Committee has not yet succeeded in killing this question. The Fishery Board for Scotland have already found it necessary, in spite of the fact that it is only three months since this Committee reported, to start a fresh inquiry for the North and West coasts of Scotland. As inquiry is apparently all the rage at the Scottish Office at present, at all events so far as fishery matters are concerned, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should extend the scope of the inquiry, in order that once again the whole subject of the financial status of fishermen should be inquired into for the whole of the coasts of Scotland. If he will agree to this suggestion, I would ask him that in regard to any Committee that might be set up, he should take particular care to see that no member of that Committee has any financial interest whatever in the existing state of things. I asked the right hon. Gentleman this Session whether any declaration was required for any person before being selected to serve on these Committees of Inquiry, similar to the declarations which have to be made by every Member of this House before he is permitted to serve on a Private Bill Committee or a Provisional
    1452
    Order Bill Committee upstairs. He replied in the negative, but added, what I am perfectly willing to believe that great care was taken in the selection of the persons who serve on those Committees of Inquiry. But when I asked him further whether any member of this Committee or North Sea Fisheries was so financially interested, he replied that he had no means whatever of finding out. I do not think it is necessary for me to prove whether the rumours of the financial interests of one of the members of this Committee was true or not. In my opinion it is the business of the Secretary for Scotland to find out whether those rumours are true, and for the rest I consider that it is a matter between the Members of that Committee and their consciences. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say definitely that he will in future make it necessary for persons to make some such declaration as I have indicated before they are allowed to serve on these departmental inquiries, for I feel sure that any action of that kind would undoubtedly serve to add at all events to the confidence which I know is already shown in the purity of its administration.
    Mr. SUTHERLAND: The greater part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was a veiled attack upon myself. I was asked by Lord Pentland to be a member of this Committee, and I refused. Pressure was put upon me, possibly because I knew something of the subject, and it was with great reluctance that I accepted. My position then was exactly my position now. Lord Pentland, then Secretary for Scotland, knew that I was not a shareholder but that I was glad to be able to help fishermen in my own locality. If I had consulted my own interests, financial or political, I should not have been a party to the Report that has been made by the Committee of which I was a Member. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has called in question the sort of evidence which was given. I impressed upon the Secretary of the Committee that anyone who had anything to say on this question in favour of State loans, should be called to give evidence, and further that every Member who had taken part in the great meeting at Great Yarmouth, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman, should be asked to come before the Committee. Not one of them did so, with the exception of the Chairman of the Fisheries Committee in this House.
    Captain WARING: He was not at the meeting.
    Mr. SUTHERLAND: He was not at the meeting, but he came and gave evidence. The Secretary of the Departmental Committee made many requests to this Fisheries Committee to come and give evidence, and to suit their own convenience as to when they would come, but the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) was the only one who came forward. When we are told that we only took a certain kind of evidence the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot be aware of the facts. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Cowan), who is Secretary of the Fisheries Committee, wrote to the Secretary of the Departmental Committee as follows:—
    "In further reply to your letter, my Committee at its meeting yesterday desired me to inform you that, believing that the witnesses who have already been heard have adequately stated the case which the Committee desire to be put before the Departmental Committee, they have no further suggestions to offer at present as to taking evidence."
    In spite of that letter, the hon. and gallant Member who makes the proposal seems not to be aware of the facts, and he blames the Departmental Committee for being biassed. So far as I am concerned the attitude I took up in cross-examining witnesses was, when a witness came before us, to find out, if I could, why he was or was not in favour of State loans, and if a witness who was in favour of them came before us, to find out why he was. On several occasions when I found that witnesses did not understand what I was driving at, I came back to the subject in order that they might make up their minds on the questions put to them. The hon. and gallant Member has not stated this fact, that there is great diversity of opinion among fishermen in Scotland as to the advisability of giving State loans. It is perfectly true that at certain meetings unanimous votes in favour of State loans have been passed. Why is that? Simply because it was a nubulous resolution committing no one to anything. There was no scheme put forward; otherwise, from the evidence we have received, there would have been great opposition. In my opinion, before we agree to give State loans, three conditions have to be fulfilled. In the first place, we must be sure that local effort is not sufficient to help local fishermen; secondly, we must be sure that the terms are oppressive and onerous; and thirdly, we must have a certainty, that the
    1454
    great fishing industry of Scotland is in a languishing condition. In my opinion neither of these conditions exists.
    Let me tell the House what is the history of the Scottish Fishing industry. In the old days we had small undecked boats in which the men rowed to their work. Afterwards decked boats, and then a particularly good class of boat called the "Zulu" boat. Although I am not a yachtsman, I have often thought that when the America Cup is to be competed for there could not be a better boat than the "Zulu" boat. It costs £800. Gradually it gave place to what is called the steam drifter. It carries a crew of nine men. Six of them are paid on the share principle, and two or three of them may be part owners of the boat. The hon. and gallant Member stated at the meeting at Yarmouth to which I have referred that the best days for fishermen were when every fisherman owned his own boat. The hon. and gallant Member must have been thinking of punting on the Thames. There never was a time, and there never could be a time, when every fisherman owned his own boat. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member has a soul far and away above trade. But you can easily understand that no fisherman could pursue the herring industry if there was only one man in a boat although he himself owned it. The story of the steam-drifter fleet is one which has something of romance about it. Within the last few years, in the North-East and other parts of Scotland, a sum of over £2,000,000 has been raised to build up that fleet. It began with forty-four ships, and there are now nearly 900 vessels. At the present moment, if you gave men the money without interest you could not get boats made; all the yards are full. Can anyone then say that the industry is in a languishing condition? And when the plea is put forward that every man should have a share of a vessel you must remember that in the old days strength merely was required to pull the boat to the fishing grounds, and every man was on a level. Now, with an instrument costing £3,000, skill, science, and education are required, and the kind of man who can be skipper of such a boat is not so plentiful.
    As to finances, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, it has long been a tradition in the Scottish fishing villages and towns that the tradespeople should, as far as possible, help the fishing, and take an interest in it. That has been so from the

    1455
    time of the first decked boats, and it remains so. Generally fishermen have a share. A fish salesman or others will advance so much, and then the whole boat is mortgaged to the bank, which may or may not give from one-third to one-half, generally one-third. But the whole boat is mortgaged in favour of the bank. What was the claim with which we, as a Committee, had got to deal? We were told, and rightly told, that in Scandinavia, Ireland, and Germany advances of money in the way of loans were given to fishermen. But to compare the Irish fleet and the Scandinavian fleet, with boats costing a few hundred pounds, with the fleet in Scotland, with boats costing £3,000, is very much like comparing a small sweet-shop with a large place of business. We were asked to give cheaper money. We were asked to increase the term of repayment, and we were asked for less security. All these things are different in Ireland, and different in the Scandinavian countries. The repayment has generally to be made in from five to ten years, In Ireland it is ten years. An Irish fisherman gets advanced to him only from £12 to £25. What is the use of £12 or £25 in the case of a drifter costing £3,000?
    Complaint has been made that shore owners, that is landsmen, have advanced so much money for boats. Some of the fishermen, including the chairman of the Peterhead Fishing Association, a man much in favour of State loans, stated that they preferred to have landowners as shareholders than to have other fishermen. The reason is obvious. Most of the shore owners put no nets on board. I do not want to go into technicalities, but in the case of dividing the proceeds of a steam drifter the cost of the boat gets one-third, the nets costing £800 get another one-third subject to certain deductions, and one can easily understand that that method gives ground for complaint. Besides, if you did pay out the shore owners, what would be the good of it? They could always again provide a fleet for themselves if they were disposed to do so. And if there is one thing more proved than another, it is this, that six co-owners in a boat would seldom agree, and that they would be selling and re-selling almost every day of the week.
    As regards the claim for loans for motor boats, nearly all fishermen in Scotland are now engaged in the great herring fishing
    1456
    industry, which may or may not be a good thing—at any rate all the eggs are in one basket. The motor boats fish for herrings like drifters and the result would be State-aided competition. A most intelligent witness from Wick gave evidence to the effect that the Wick fishermen were in favour of motor boats, but that motor boats were in an experimental stage. Certainly that was not a very strong argument for the State to go in for motor boats. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the report with reference to what was said at the Great Yarmouth meeting, which was attended by several Members of Parliament. Very grave charges were made, and in consequence a deputation afterwards waited upon Lord Pentland on the subject. One statement most frequently made at that meeting was that owing to the shore capitalists Scottish fishermen had to engage in Sunday fishing. That was repeated time after time. But the only man who made such a statement before the Committee was the agent of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, and he at once asked that the statement should be withdrawn.
    Then we were told that the boats had to go where they were told. If there is one thing surer than another it is that the fishermen of Scotland know their own business best, and that no man need interfere with them. Bank interest has been referred to. In Scandinavia for small steamboats 4 per cent. is charged. In Fraserburgh, owing to the new account system prevailing in Scotland, the interest in some cases is 3 per cent., others 4 per cent., and in a few exceeding 5 per cent. entirely according to what the catch may be. We were told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that fishermen were tied to those who supplied them with goods. May I be permitted to state that from certain parts no such complaint was made, and the fishermen who appeared before us said they were satisfied with the system. Complaints were made from Fraserburg, Peterhead, and Lossiemouth, and the witnesses were asked to give proof of such statements to the Committee, and informed that the statements they made would be kept private, but nothing was forthcoming. Only one member of the Fisheries Committee in this House, the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, came forward, and he stated that he represented that Committee. He represented, therefore, their views. Let me read several

    1457
    questions addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire, whose sincerity and ingenuousness I have always admired. He said:—
    "Alterations are necessary if the Scottish industry is to be protected and maintained."
    Then another question was put to him:—
    "Why do you assume that the Scottish fishery has declined?—From information that came to us as representatives."
    Will it be believed that the Scottish herring fishery is the greatest the world has seen, and the percentage of increase within the last fifteen years calculated on the first and last five years of the catch in Scotland is 91; in England, 55; and in Ireland, 1.9. I know perfectly well that Ireland will soon get Home Rule, but I shall be very much surprised indeed if their present system of advancing loans is likely to be continued. The Irish fishing is mostly caught by English and Scottish boats. When the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was asked are you prepared to have an indefinite expansion of the fleet, he said that he was. Indefinite expansion of the fleet means congested markets and ruin. Last year was one of the best for fishermen, and it is a significant fact that in Yarmouth on one day the price was 40s. while on another day, owing to the glut, they were sold at half-a-crown. It must not be forgotten, and I hope it will not be, that as soon as the question is settled in favour of State loans for Scotland you have got to face the same question on a bigger scale in England. The trawl owners who appeared before the Committee stated that they were waiting to see what was done with regard to State loans for Scottish fishermen, and that they would make a claim for State loans for fishermen in England if they were granted to Scotland. Then ruin and disaster is before the industry. I have lived amongst the fishermen and know the coast and know the temperament of the men as well as anybody in this House, and I want them to be independent. We have been told that they will be tied if companies are formed. I have done my best in a very little way to help to keep them from being absorbed into companies, and to be independent, and the one regret that is expressed is that I have done it. Why do not those Gentlemen who are so eager to criticise us come to the help of the fishermen of Scotland? What would be the state of the industry if it were dependent on them and on them alone? What the men of Devon have done for the Navy of England the Scottish fishermen have done
    1458
    for the fishing industry. I am certain of this, that as soon as they realise that the granting of loans to them will mean Grants for all kinds of Scottish and English fishermen, and that the markets cannot cope with the supplies, they will be very glad that the question of State Loans has been settled in the way it has.
    Mr. COWAN: The hon. Member for Elgin Burghs (Mr. Sutherland) referred to a letter which I wrote to the Departmental Committee. I unfortunately have not got a copy of that letter before me, as I was not aware the hon. Member proposed to read it to the House, but what I was said to have written I understand was something like this, "Believing that the witnesses who have already been heard have-adequately stated the case for State loans. I have no further witnesses to suggest." I think, substantially, that is what I suggested. I would like to say in reference to another statement of the hon. Member that the Secretary of the Departmental Committee made many efforts to induce Members to give evidence, that on the contrary I had the greatest difficulty, as Secretary to the Scottish Fishery Members in this House, in inducing the Secretary of the Departmental Committee to call the witnesses whose names I furnished to him on behalf of my Committee; and when I wrote to him towards the conclusion of the inquiry that we had no-further evidence to suggest, because we believed the witnesses who had been called had adequately stated the case, we did so absolutely in ignorance of what evidence had been given. When the Report of the Committee was issued and we realised the nature of the evidence that had been given, and the way in which the witnesses had been handled, and the generally unsatisfactory conduct of the inquiry, naturally we took a very different view. I would have liked very much, if it were possible—I know it is quite impossible to-night—to have answered the speech of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Sutherland).
    Mr. PIRIE: Next year.
    Mr. COWAN: I shall have an opportunity, my hon. Friend suggests, next year.
    The CHAIRMAN: I called the hon. Member on the understanding that it was to deal with a personal reference. A personal explanation is his only title to

    1459
    intervene. Otherwise I should have called an hon. Member on the other side of the House.
    Mr. COWAN: Then I must wait until next year.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: With regard to Treasury Grants for motor-boats, the position of the fishermen whom I represent is that they have no objection to Treasury Grants being given to those who want them, but that they themselves are independent men owning their own boats, and they are not much interested in that matter. The matters in which they are interested are trawling for herrings, the statement that such trawling is harmful to the industry, and the territorial limit. The three-mile limit, they say, is too small and ought to be extended, and that unless it is extended we shall before long be faced with a very serious state of affairs. They say that the white fishing has shown a continuous decrease, and it remains to be proved whether herring fishing will not do so too. The migratory habits of the herring are very embarrassing to scientists. It is hard to prove where the herring goes and what it does; and almost every Member will await with great interest the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee presided over by the Postmaster-General. I remember being asked two years ago, on the appointment of the Committee, when I expected its Report, and my answer was, "After the next Election." It strikes me that that prophecy is going to come true. I cannot understand why it is taking so long to get out that Report. All the evidence was concluded months ago; there has been ample time to sift it thoroughly, and it ought to have been published long before now. The results of the Report may be vital to the men who are working for their livelihood, and it is very wrong that it should be delayed.
    Another point has reference to the fines upon trawlers and poachers within the three-mile limit. The fines are quite insufficient. If they were sufficient there would not be a continuance of the offence. It has been proved again and again that nobody cares. The owners may pay the fine, and the people who actually commit the offence get off without any punishment at all. This ought to be put a stop to. With regard to the Fishery Cruisers, the officers and crews are
    1460
    most inadequately compensated for their work. They have all sorts of onerous work, and it has been added to lately; but they have no pensions whatever, and their pay is quite inadequate. I know that the Secretary for Scotland is anxious to get this put right. However anxious he may be, it is his duty to go to the Treasury and get a Grant if the money in his hands is not sufficient. As to Sunday fishing, I think it is very wrong that fishermen from Scotland should be handicapped. They see English fishermen going out and coming home with big catches, when they, because of their religious principles, are not able to do so. That should be looked into, and we should have fair play to all.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Hon. Members on this side are grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his courtesy in making his remarks short from consideration of time. Were time not so short I should have desired to deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Banffshire; meantime let me say that I am in general agreement with the views he expressed. Like the hon. Gentleman opposite I have always considered the extension of the territorial waters a capital question affecting line fishermen. Without exaggeration, I think I may say that we have had Committees sitting on this subject for the last fifty years. I will content myself with going back twenty years. The Committee which sat under the presidency of the late Lord Tweedmouth, then Mr. Marjoribanks, in 1893, recommended the extension of the Three-Mile Limit for fishery purposes. That recommendation was embodied in a Bill introduced by the Liberal Government in 1895. It was that you should draw a line right across the East Coast of Scotland from Rattray Head, at the corner of Aberdeenshire, to Northumberland, and that there should be power to prohibit trawling in that very wide area. The proposal was eventually cut down to a suggested 13-mile limit. In commending the proposal on behalf of the Liberal Government, of which the present Prime Minister was a leading Member, Lord Tweedmouth said:—
    "He did not regard this Bill as in any sense a party measure, nor was it brought forward as such, or with the view of catching votes. He really believed it was the minimum that could be given to the fishermen of Scotland with any prospect of doing them justice."
    That Bill was nearly passed intact. The only reason that it is not on the Statute Book and operative at the present moment, is that on the Motion of the late Lord Salisbury, who intervened at the last

    1461
    moment, a proviso was inserted in the Bill to the effect that it should not be operative until the consent of the other signatory Powers to the North Sea Convention was obtained. I do not suggest that this would be a well chosen moment to approach the other Great Powers with a view to an amicable conference upon the subject of fish. But I do wish to say that successive Governments have for twenty years been considering this question, and I do most earnestly press upon my right hon. Friend—and I should press it at greater length if I had time—and His Majesty's Government to carry out the policy of their predecessors, and make this Bill operative in fact as it is in intention.
    Mr. PIRIE: The hon. Member who has just sat down dwelt upon the importance of the Scottish fisheries, and I should like to point out to the authorities on the Front Bench that if they had been a little wiser they could have made the fishing industry in Scotland greater than it is at the present moment. I want to draw attention to the present state of things in the Murray Firth, which were brought to light by the Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire yesterday. He asked a question as to how many foreign trawlers had been fishing in the Moray Firth since January this year. The reply was fifty-eight foreign trawlers as against two trawlers under the British Flag. The hon. Member for Forfarshire will remember that he and I were in a minority of one protesting against the enactment and the Bill for the prohibition of trawling in prohibited areas. Every word of our predictions then have been more than fulfilled. The whole of the Moray Firth is kept preserved for foreign trawlers, and every one of the predictions I made to deaf and dull and stupid ears, and never more stupid than at the present moment, have come true to the letter. One might as well try and charge a brick wall: it is useless to do it. This question was asked partly by chance yesterday, and we have these facts brought out. Fifty-eight foreign trawlers protected by British cruisers trawling in the Moray Firth, while the cruisers prevent British trawlers fishing there. How long is this state of things to go on? The Noble Lord asked another question, namely, How it was that British trawlers were prevented from fishing while foreign trawlers were allowed to fish without molestation? The Secretary for Scotland, in reply, went
    1462
    off on a side issue and evaded the whole question. It is ridiculous that only forty-five minutes should be given for the discussion of this great fishing industry in Scotland. I hope the Lord Advocate will reply to the questions I have raised.
    Mr. MORTON: I should like to have gone into this question of the Report of the Departmental Committee. I am not going to have anything to say to personal matters except that I object to having any paid officials on these Committees.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).

  BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL [Lords].
  Order read for Consideration of Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee).
  [Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move "That the Bill be re-committed."
  I want to give the Colonial Secretary a chance of explaining this matter. "When this Bill was before the House on the Second Reading only a very few minutes were available, and a very important point was raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras with regard to the position of a woman who married an alien. That was the principal point made by those who criticised this Bill on the Second Reading. The proceedings were curtailed very much indeed, and many hon. Members who wished to speak withheld their remarks because the right hon. Gentleman said he would take an opportunity of interviewing hon. Members before the Committee stage, and he stated that he hoped to be able to make a satisfactory concession. I regret to say that I see no evidence of any concession on this point. The Bill has come back from the Committee without a single word being altered, and no doubt there is some explanation of it. I think we are entitled to a word of explanation. I have received very strong complaints from hon. Friends of mine who were on this Committee, and who wish me to press this point, because they say that the matter was hurried

  1463
  through and they did not get the opportunity they expected. It may be that they are mistaken, and that my right hon. Friend is going to meet those points now.
  I do not intend to state the case myself, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. Edmund Harvey) will probably put the matter in a more direct manner. I do not wish to dwell upon the merits of the case, but I hope there will be some satisfactory explanation given of the matter of which we complain. My own view is that this Bill has never really had a Committee stage, and it practically comes before us now to have a Committee stage although it is called a Report stage. I hope we shall not be thought unreasonable in insisting that these matters should be gone into very fully. If the Colonial Secretary can give us some satisfactory explanation I shall withdraw my Motion, and we can then go on with the Amendments on the Paper. I do not propose this as a dilatory Motion, and an explanation will probably facilitate the business more especially if the right hon. Gentleman can indicate what substantial concession he can make. I notice the right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment on the Paper, but that does not meet the point. The point made on the Second Reading is that a woman who marries an alien, whether she is to have the choice on marriage of retaining her British citizenship or not, or whether the woman who has married an alien can resume her British nationality at once if she is left a widow. Those are two very different points from the point as to the husband changing his nationality during the period of marriage. I will not go into them now, because probably some statement will be made which will facilitate the proceedings.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to second the Motion. I do so from a slightly different point of view from that of my hon. Friend. It would be very valuable if we could have a statement from the Colonial Secretary as to the general question of the status of women under this Bill, but apart from that we should be fully justified in referring this Bill back again for detailed consideration in Committee, because this question is of such vast importance, and it is obvious that the Committee has not been able to deal with the various points raised. I believe the Colonial Secretary was of the view when the Bill was read a second time that no change was expedient in it, even although it
  1464
  might be a good change in itself, because the measure had been agreed to by representatives of the Dominions, but I see that he himself has now put down a number of Amendments. They are all very welcome Amendments, and I am very glad that he has been able to see his way to make them, but the very fact that he has made them shows that the Bill could not have been properly considered and amended in detail in Committee.
  It is unsuitable that at such an hour and so late in the Session we should deal with a question of such enormous importance to one half of His Majesty's subjects, which has aroused a very great deal of feeling among women in this country, and I think we can be sure in the Dominions also. It is a matter of the very greatest interest to women subjects of the Crown. Surely it would be well that the Bill should be reconsidered from this point of view and that an opportunity should be given to women in the Commonwealth and women generally to express their opinions on this important point of safeguarding their nationality. Even if it meant a delay of some months or possibly even of a year in carrying what is in its main features a most desirable measure, it would be worth while. We must feel that there is something ironical in a Parliament of men, elected by men, settling once and for all the citizenship and the civic rights of women who have no voice in the matter directly at all, something which in the nature of things seems hardly just and right. I for one feel that we are not justified, men elected by men, in barring out from their rights in the citizenship of the Empire a large number of our fellow subjects. It is for this reason I second the Motion, and I hope very much that we may have a satisfactory assurance from the Colonial Secretary.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): On the Second Reading of this Bill I promised my hon. Friends on this side of the House that I would
  "Carefully consider the point, which is dealt with in Clauses 10 and 11, with the view, if possible, of meeting the objections. I cannot say positively now that I will be able to meet the point raised by my hon. Friends. I can make no promise at present, for I must consider the matter carefully. We must not interfere with the existing legislation of the Dominions. I cannot do better at present than say that I will carefully consider the point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1914. col. 1210, Vol. LXII.]
  I had considered those points carefully: every Amendment which was put down was considered and there was no point

  1465
  which appeared on the Paper which was not discussed as fully as hon. Members desired. I was not able to meet their suggestion at that time, but on further consideration I have been able I hope to meet their wishes in large part. We have not thought it possible to alter the law of naturalisation which has been in operation in this country by statute for forty-four years. This Bill makes no change in our law of naturalisation except to enable certain fellow - citizens of ours in the Dominions to obtain British nationality. That is the sole object of this Bill, and although there are many provisions in it which are mere repetitions of the existing law, it is in fact a codifying Bill.
  I have endeavoured in the Amendments I have put down to meet two points which were raised and discussed. It was said there was a hardship in an Englishwoman who had married an alien, but who wanted after his death to resume her British nationality, being called upon to go through the process of naturalisation—i.e., five years' residence subsequent to widowhood, and the payment of a fee of £3. In Committee upstairs my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I promised that by Regulation the widow should be enabled to resume her nationality, or rather claim a new naturalisation, counting her residence here before marriage in the five years, and we also promised by Regulation that the fee charged, instead of being three guineas should in no case exceed 5s. It was admitted by my hon. Friends that met their point, but they were dissatisfied that it was to be done by Regulation, and they suspected that our successors might alter this valuable Amendment, if made by Regulation. I do not really suspect my successors as my hon. Friends seem to, but we have now decided to put this into the text of the Bill. Therefore I hope my Amendment meets that particular point.
  There was another point, not raised in Committee upstairs but submitted privately to me since, which I think is also a matter of hardship, and that is the case of an Englishwoman marrying an Englishman who subsequently to the marriage, and it being no part of the marriage contract, undertakes to become a citizen of some foreign country by naturalisation. Under our law and the law of other countries she has to follow the nationality of her husband although she was not a consenting party to the change of nationality, and it was no part of the contract she made on her marriage. We have
  1466
  determined to deal with that, and that is the other Amendment I have put down. In the event of an Englishwoman marrying and finding that her husband subsequently naturalises himself in some other country she will be enabled by declaration to retain the nationality which she accepted on her marriage. I really think we have here met two most reasonable points. As to allowing any woman to retain her own nationality when she deliberately marries an alien, if we did that we should be departing from the practice of the whole civilised world. Every nation in the world has not adopted but happens to pursue the same policy and the same law which is ours in Great Britain, with the exception of Venezuela and Spain. Very grave questions arise as to domicile, taxation and other matters, and especially as to children if you have a dual nationality of husband and wife. I would not recommend the House to make so grave a change as that in our naturalisation laws.
  The question was carefully considered by a Royal Commission which sat in the year 1869 upon which the Act of 1870 was founded, and the whole matter was carefully argued by four of the greatest lawyers we have ever had in this country—Coleridge, Jessel, Selborne, and another whose name I have forgotten. They all took the view that it was essential that the nationality of the wife should follow that of the husband. That has always been the practice of international law accepted by the civilised world. By the reasonable Amendments which my right hon. Friend and I have made, we have done our best to meet the two hard cases which might arise. I hope, therefore, that the House will not for a moment think it necessary to recommit this Bill, and as to the particular details we shall be prepared to deal with them on the Amendments which appear on the Paper.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I did not propose to deal with the question of the position of married women at this juncture, but I feel bound to do so and perhaps it would be more convenient if I did so at this moment. In the first place, I should like to join issue very respectfully with the right hon. Gentleman upon his assertion that this matter was thoroughly threshed out in Committee. If it had been I should be the last to ask the House at this moment to reconsider this important question. This matter was debated on the Second Reading very

  1467
  shortly and the right hon. Gentleman promised, in order that we should allow it to go through that stage, to carefully consider various points between then and the Committee. When the Committee stage arrived he did not propose anything except this one minor suggestion for altering the Regulations under which the Home Office acts in this matter. The Committee stage was considerably hurried.
  The Bill was referred to Committee "C." We were summoned to meet on a day of the week on which that Committee never sits; the last day before we adjourned for the Recess. The circumstances at the moment rendered it desirable that we should get rid of the business on that day, and it was in pursuance of that feeling on the part of the Committee, expressed and unexpressed, that I personally did not make any effort to hold over the discussion till another day. I feel certain that if we had held it over and had had three or four weeks to consider it, in which time public opinion and the opinion of women's societies could have made itself apparent to members of the Committee, we should have had a far better discussion and a far better result from our deliberations. As a matter of fact the deliberations of the Committee extended over only about three hours on a Bill which undoubtedly is of very great importance, and which, quite apart from the question of the nationality of women, raises questions which fully deserve consideration. It was passed without Amendment, very largely on the plea that it was an agreed Bill and that it was not fair to the Dominions for us to interefere with it.
  On that point I should like also to make this observation, because I think it is one of importance. Here is a Bill of very great importance, and raising matters affecting the whole Empire, and affecting very closely the women of the Empire. This measure has been brought forward on the plea that it is an agreed measure without a single representative body in the whole Empire having ever considered the principles on which it is based. It is quite true that it was the result of the Imperial Conference, but no public body has had any opportunity of deciding for or against these proposals until they were brought up in the various Parliaments of the Empire. Canada has dealt with it. They passed the Bill, but with a protest on this very point. I do not quite know
  1468
  the position in Australia, but I know the Australian women protested very strongly against it. Therefore this very important matter has been dealt with without the representatives of the people having an opportunity of saying anything in the matter. In regard to the main question the right hon. Gentleman has put a forcible case. He says this is not only a law that has existed in this country for forty-five years, but it is the law of the whole civilised world. It is quite true that since 1907 it is the law of most of the civilised world, although they still contest it in Australia, because in 1907 the United States for the first time made it law that an American woman marrying an alien should by force of law become an alien.
  Up to 1907 the American woman retained her American rights because the American law was based upon the law of England—the law of all English-speaking nations. The British common law had always been, until 1870, that a British woman did not lose her nationality on her marriage. It is quite true that the rest of the civilised world had the opposite view, that a woman was bound to merge her individuality and her nationality in her husband's, but up to 1870 we had resisted that and if in 1870 the women's voice had been heard, if a single opportunity had been given to women to consider the question, I doubt very much whether the Parliament of 1870 would have carried it. My right hon. Friend now says this was the result of very long consideration by Lord Selborne and others. I have looked through that Commission's report and I fail to see that this question of the married women's position was discussed in any way whatever. When the change was made the point was raised in Debate and the answer was simply that the rest of the countries had this law and it was better that we should follow then-example. It did not very much matter, and it was more convenient they said, and had no effect upon propertied women because by the Act of 1870 they gave to the alien for the first time the right of holding property in this country. I hope to show that it is not propertied women who are concerned at all. It is the poor women, and it is for them that I am anxious to make that change.
  I will ask the House to revert to the law of England that held good prior to 1870. I submit that the time has now come

  1469
  when we must recognise that the ideas of society with regard to the position of married women have changed very much indeed. It is not long ago since it was held to be an absurd proposal that a married woman should hold her property apart from that of her husband. Her property became her husband's up to a very few years ago. Since then a change has been made, and the woman holds her separate property and her separate earnings just in the same way as the man can do. She has her individuality with regard to all questions of holding property. But now we may go a step further, and we may urge, as I urge, that unless you can show strong reasons from the point of view of the public interest that a married woman should be bound by law to accept the nationality of her husband, you are not justified in putting her in that position by law. A man can go to another country, and if he is a respectable person he can become naturalised in that country.
  Why should not a woman have the same right as a man to choose her nationality? If you can give any substantial reason why it is inexpedient for a woman to remain a Britisher after she marries a foreigner, it should be stated. I have seen the correspondence in the newspapers, and I have looked through the Debates in this House and in the other House, and I have never found a reason which I could see was a valid objection to a woman having the right to say, "I prefer to remain a Britisher, even although my husband is a Frenchman or a German." There is no reason why a person should not have two nationalities. There are many cases where they do. There is no real objection to it. Prior to 1907 an American woman could not lose her American citizenship by marrying a Frenchman, although if she went to live in France she would have to submit to the laws of France and become a French citizen. That was changed in 1907 for the same reason that we changed it. It was done as a matter of convenience.
  I wish to point out that there are two branches of the subject. There is the question of the British woman who marries a foreigner and then goes to live abroad. I do not think that, in very many cases a woman who does so would want to remain a British citizen. There would be some cases. Curiously enough I know of them. Since I have raised the question in this House I have received letters from a lady living in Germany thanking me for bringing it forward. I had a letter from a lady
  1470
  living in Constantinople who married a Moslem and never realised when she did so that she was handing herself over to a system of law totally inconsistent with the system of law here. If she had had the right to remain a British citizen, she would have been protected to a certain extent. It is, however, on the second branch of this question that the grievance exists mostly, and that is in the case of the wife of an alien who lives in this country. I have knowledge of a case which I should like to bring before the House because I think it shows very plainly the position at the present moment.
  I was interested last year in trying to get old age pensions for an old man and an old woman. The old man had been in this country for sixty-seven years. He had been brought over to this country from Germany by his father, and when he applied for the pension he was told that his father had not taken out naturalisation papers, and the result was that he was disappointed about his pension. But what about the wife? His wife was an English woman who had never left this country, and she was refused an old age pension because she was no longer a British subject. She had no idea at the time she married that she was marrying a German. Everybody thought that he was an Englishman. For years he served in the Post Office, and he has got a little pension from it. But as far as the woman is concerned she lost her pension simply because she married this man, innocently, and because the law of this country laid it down in 1870 that by marrying a person of foreign nationality a woman was to lose her citizenship. I mention that case as a very striking one, but it is not unique. It holds good in many places, especially in the East End of London. My hon. Friend who represents the Division of Stepney has found this a pressing question, and one which inflicts very considerable hardship upon the wife. Think of the position of the wife who has married an alien living in England. Her children are all British subjects because' they are born in England and she is the only one of the family, with the exception' of the husband, who is prevented from enjoying the advantages of British citizenship, and this is not only during the lifetime of the husband, but afterwards when she becomes a widow.
  The difficulties which arise in connection with this matter are so apparent that the right hon. Gentleman has now agreed to

  1471
  meet us on certain points. He is going to allow that a widow who was a British subject is to regain her rights. He is also going to allow that if a British subject becomes an alien then his wife shall not be compelled to follow him. That is a concession and we are very much obliged to him for it. But at the same time if you go so far I cannot see why you cannot accept the principle which I believe is the right principle, that is that the woman should have an equal right with the man to say whether or not she renounces or does not renounce her British nationality. There is one grievance which under the present law has already had to be remedied, because the Old Age Pensions Act did not apply to the wife of an alien. The Old Age Pension Amending Act in 1911 has allowed the old age pension to be given, not to the wife of an alien it is quite true, but to the widow of an alien. Then the National insurance Act was found also to work a hardship in cases like that, and so in 1913 we had to alter that. I submit that the real remedy is the remedy which I ask for, the remedy which I quite admit the rest of the world has not yet adopted, but which if we adopt it the rest of the world will soon adopt; because all over the world the idea is growing that a married woman should have precisely equal rights with her husband. Unless some strong public reason is urged against it I fail to see any objection. The question of children does not arise. Children would follow the nationality of the father. At present the child follows the nationality of the father if the father is alive or of the mother if there is only a mother.
  I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the two concessions which he has made. I think that he has done something to meet two very glaring injustices from which women suffer, but I do not see why he should not complete it and make a good job of it. This is not only my suggestion. Almost every society that is connected with women's work in this country has passed resolutions in favour of it. It is an almost unanimous feeling on the art of women that they should revert to the old common law of England, and that is the Amendment I shall move later on.
  Question, "That the Bill be recommitted," put, and negatived.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Definition of Natural-born British Subject.)
    Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: I have an Amendment on the Paper which I shall not press—to leave out the words "and allegiance," in paragraph (a) ["any person born within His Majesty's dominions and allegiance"], and to insert instead thereof the words "specified in the First Schedule of this Act," if I receive an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that it will not in any way increase our responsibilities as regards our Oriental fellow subjects as it at present stands.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will in no way alter the position as it is at present.
    Mr. STEWART: After that assurance I shall not move the Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) is beyond the scope of the Bill.

    PART II.
      NATURALISATION OF ALIENS.

        CLAUSE 2.—(Certificate of Naturalisation.)
        2.—(1) The Secretary of State may grant a certificate of naturalisation to an alien who makes an application for the purpose, and satisfies the Secretary of State—

        (a) that he has either resided in His Majesty's dominions for a period of not less than five years in the manner required by this Section, or been in the service of the Crown for not less than five years within the last eight years before the application; and

        (b) that he is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of the English language; and

        (c) that he intends if his application is granted either to reside in His Majesty's dominions or to enter or continue in the service of the Crown.

        (2) The residence required by this Section is residence in the United Kingdom for not less than one year immediately preceding the application, and previous residence, either in the United Kingdom or in some other part of His Majesty's dominions, for a period of four years within the last eight years before the application.
        (3) The grant of a certificate of naturalisation to any such alien shall be in the

        1473
        absolute discretion of the Secretary of State, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.
        (4) A certificate of naturalisation shall not take effect until the applicant has taken the oath of allegiance.
        (5) The secretary of State may in any special case, if he thinks fit, grant a certificate of naturalisation, although the four years' residence or five years' service has not been within the last eight years before the application.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the words "an adequate knowledge of the English language," and insert instead the words "a sufficient knowledge of the English language to enable him to fulfil the duties of an ordinary British subject." This Bill is entitled a Bill "to consolidate and amend the Enactments relating to British Nationality and the status of aliens," The Colonial Secretary emphasised the fact that it is a consolidating Bill, but it is also, as the title indicates, an amending Bill. Even if it were a consolidating Bill I think that is no answer why a great subject like this should not be dealt with. This provision in paragraph (b), Sub-section (1) is an amendment of the existing law. The Clause lays down conditions with which a person who applies for a certificate must comply. At present there is nothing in the Statute to require any standard in any language, though it is true in practice the Home Secretary does investigate whether a person applying for naturalisation can read and write; but the test is not educational, but simply some evidence that the person has given an indication of his intention to settle in this country by making himself acquainted with the language.
        If there were no alteration being made in the Bill I should have no complaint, but for the first time you are proposing as a statutory requirement that the person shall have an adequate knowledge of the English language. I want to know what is meant by adequate knowledge? It might well be that a Home Secretary if he was not particularly anxious to naturalise an applicant might say that the applicant had not an adequate knowledge of the English language if he was not able to take English in a degree of the
        1474
        University of London or pass matriculation. The phrase adequate knowledge is one which I think is open to abuse on the part of a Minister anxious to use it as an excuse to prevent people becoming naturalised. I have come across cases in my own Constituency in which even the present language test which is not statutory has worked hardly. I remember an applicant who apparently was refused a certificate on the ground of lack of knowledge of English coming here. I gave him one of our Order Papers, and he read it. If I had given him this Bill to read I am sure he would not have shown an "adequate knowledge" to understand it. I am not at all sure that there are not Clauses in the Bill which even Members of Parliament may not have an "adequate knowledge" to comprehend without a great deal of trouble. I then asked him to put in writing what he had come to see me about. He did so, and I looked at it. It was the most extraordinary looking stuff I had ever seen. For a moment it was quite incomprehensible, and then I saw that it was in the most perfect phonetics, and I could read it perfectly well. It would be absurd to say that that man, if in every other respect a desirable citizen, should not be allowed to become naturalised simply because his way of writing English was not the normal. He had an absolutely sufficient knowledge of the English language to enable him to fulfil the duties of the average citizen in the East-end of London, and a very much better knowledge than many of our English-born subjects.
        If we are going to make any alteration in the law, I should prefer that we had no reference to the English language at all; but if we are going to put it in the Statute, I think it is quite sufficient to say, as my Amendment suggests, that that knowledge should be sufficient to enable the applicant to fulfil the duties of an ordinary British subject. It is very curious that, as the Bill stands, it will be quite possible for a person who does not speak a word of English to become naturalised. If he is a Frenchman, he can go to Canada, where under this Bill they will accept French in lieu of English; he may become naturalised there, and then if he comes to this country he is accepted as a fully naturalised British subject, although he may not be able to speak a word of English. In the same way a Dutchman may go to South Africa where Dutch would be accepted in

        1475
        lieu of English; and he would be accepted here as a full British subject, although he could not speak a word of English. I do not go so far as that. I say that it is perfectly right to expect a person who is throwing in his lot with us to have that knowledge of the English language which we should expect the average man in his position in life to have.
        Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
        I think it is much better that we should leave the law as it is, and that the granting of certificates of naturalisation should be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State. In the exercise of that discretion, the Secretary of State, when a man makes application for naturalisation, makes such regulations as he thinks fit in regard to a knowledge of the English language. I think we had better leave it there rather than insert a statutory obligation which will have very far-reaching effects. In my opinion, this matter requires a great deal more consideration and explanation than it had when it was rushed through an impatient Committee in an incredibly short space of time. I wish to call the attention of the House, not to the case of this country, nor to that of the great Dominions, but to the case of the British Empire at large, which covers an enormous area of the world and contains a population reckoned by hundreds of millions. My hon. Friend reminds me of a quotation that was first made by the Emperor Nero, that he had an Empire on which the sun never set. Although that was not true of the Empire of Nero, it is literally true of the British Empire.
        This Clause introduces for the first time a statutory obligation that the applicant for naturalisation shall have an adequate knowledge of the English language. If we turn to Clause 8 we find that naturalisation may be granted by the Government of every British Possession on the same terms in effect as they may be granted in this country by the Secretary of State. Therefore, if naturalisation is granted in any British Possession remote from this it would seem to be the law that an adequate knowledge of the English language must be required from the applicant for naturalisation in that Possession. In India we have a population of 300,000,000, all of whom are British subjects, and probably none the worse British subjects because most of them have no adequate knowledge
        1476
        of the English language. If you turn to Nigeria, Canada, Sarawak, or the Straits Settlements you will find millions of persons who are excellent British subjects and who have little or no knowledge of the English language. It is with them a valued accomplishment, and I hope that it may grow. But if a man has become a British subject in one of those Possessions where the English language is not spoken, surely the important thing that he should know is the language of those who will be his fellow-subjects?
        If I am right in the construction that I put on this Clause, and on Clause 8, and infer that it is made an obligation by Statute that an adequate knowledge of the English language shall be required of every applicant for naturalisation in any of our Possessions, however remote, then I think the matter requires some explanation or justification which I never received in Committee and never heard from anyone. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not considering the case of our great Dominions, which can make their own regulations in regard to the English language as the Secretary of State can make them here. I am not concerned with these Dominions, where, as we see in Clause 8, certain cases are on an equality with the English, namely, the Dutch in South Africa and the French in Canada. I am concerned solely with the great population that does not know the English language. If it is right that all the persons who do not know the English language and who purpose living in these Possessions ought not to attain the great boon of British nationality then I think we ought to have some explanation and justification of what I understand is the new policy.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friends are under a misapprehension as to the nature and scope of this Bill. The desire was expressed in two successive conferences by the Dominions that there should be a general Imperial law of naturalisation. In order to get stated the general law it obviously would be necessary to reduce the existing law to writing. The British law of naturalisation consists partly of Statute law, partly of common law, and partly of practice. If all these sources of British nationality law are to be embodied in a Statute it is necessary that what was hitherto practice should become a statutory enactment and what

        1477
        was hitherto common law should become a statutory enactment. We could not lay before the Dominions the British law of nationality unless we put the whole body of the law, whether Statute law, common law, or practice, into written form. My hon. Friends complain that for the first time, what hitherto has been practice, is now to be made statutory. That is an essential condition of passing a Bill which is to make the law and practice uniform throughout the Empire.
        There is no change in the law. I must, however, make one slight qualification here because there are very slight changes in the law, but so slight that I do not think there is a single Amendment on the Paper with regard to any change of the law. They are very slight and trivial and only such changes as it is desirable to make in the interest of the Dominions and ourselves in the existing law. This Bill does not purport to be a Bill amending the existing law of naturalisation. It purports to represent in statutory form the existing practice, the existing common law and the existing Statute law. If we are to present to the Dominions in the form of an enactment the sum total of our existing law we must put into a statutory provision what hitherto has been simply practice. Is the practice a reasonable one? The practice so far as this country is concerned consisted of an adequate knowledge of English to fulfil the requirements. We, in practice, insist, as we are entitled to, in the administration of the law at the Home Office, that every applicant for British nationality in this country shall show that he or she has the intention to associate himself or herself with British law and institutions, and we say that as a first evidence of that intention a man or woman who comes to live here must learn the English language. That is not an unreasonable requirement. We say there should be adequate knowledge here.
        Mr. BOOTH: Would my right hon. Friend say what he means by "here"?
        12.0 M.
        Mr. McKENNA: In England—not in the Empire. This Bill is simply a summary of the existing English law and practice. When we take Clauses 8 and 9 there we adapt this Bill to the requirements of the Dominions and our Possessions. This is our law, and we insist that there should be an adequate knowledge of the English language. That is not altering the law
        1478
        because the Home Office already insist upon that. In practice we say that a man must speak English, and in general he must read or write English, but we make exceptions. We say for instance that in the case of an applicant for nationality who has never learned to read or write in his own language it would be most unfair to ask him to learn to read or write a foreign language. We ask that a roan should show such evidence before he can adopt our nationality and identify himself with us and our institutions should take the trouble to learn our language. I do not think my hon. Friend's Amendment makes the law any clearer. Who is to be the judge of an adequate or sufficient knowledge? In either case it is going to be the Home Secretary, and the hon. Member does not assist in the slightest degree by the addition of those words.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: The right hon. Gentleman says he accepts the reading or writing of English as an adequate knowledge. Is it not likely that in the future there may be some other Home Secretary who may decide that unless a man can both read and write English he has not an adequate knowledge?
        Mr. McKENNA: This Amendment does not help the hon. Member's intention. This is an administrative point, and really you cannot administer by Act of Parliament. The control of administration is not by legislation but by criticising the action of the Minister and to put into the Clause these details believing that you can control administration by so doing is a mistake. I have stated what is the general practice of the Home Office and the true remedy of taking the judgment of the House. The Bill represents the existing law and as such it is presented to the Dominions, now to become, we trust, the Imperial law.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: If I can have a Parliamentary assurance that our practice is not going to be altered and that a person who can either read or write may be naturalised I should be willing to accept that.
        Mr. McKENNA: That is the existing practice.
        Mr. LYNCH: I think the Home Secretary has forced his argument too far. In dealing with this measure I hope we shall cast aside the idea that we are dealing with this matter Imperially. The Dominions have a right to consider this

        1479
        Bill in regard to their own circumstances, and already Canada has departed from the Bill as presented to us. Australia has power, not only now, but any time, to deal with this matter. The Imperial Conferences have no sanction whatever; they are only advisory bodies, and we should be extremely sorry to see any such powers taken from the Dominions and merged in any Imperial body. We must dismiss any other factor from our minds, except in so far as it affects legislation and the good working of the provisions in this country, and this country alone.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Dr. CHAPPLE: I beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "United Kingdom" ["residence in the United Kingdom"], and to insert instead thereof the words "British Islands." This is a more comprehensive term.
        Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so for the strange reason that I do not know anything about it, and, as the Mover has not chosen to explain it, probably the Front Bench will oblige us.
        Mr. McKENNA: This point is really covered by Clause 8. If the Amendment were made, it would include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. These being British Possessions, they are really covered by Clause 8, and it would be bad drafting to deal with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in Clause 2 and then deal with other British Possessions in Clause 8. It is far better to deal with them all in one Clause.
        Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether the islands of New Zealand are British Possessions?
        Mr. McKENNA: They are Dominions.
        Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment [in Sub-section (4) after the word "oath" to insert the words "or affirmation"] standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Radford) is unnecessary. The interpretation of the word "oath" covers "affirmation."
        Mr. RADFORD: I am perfectly aware of that point, but I propose to move to insert the words "or affirmation" for reasons which I should be glad to explain.
        Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that it is not in Order, because it is already covered.
        Mr. HARCOURT: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (5), to insert the words, "In the case of a woman who was a British subject previously to her marriage to an alien and whose husband has died, or whose marriage has been dissolved, the requirements of this Section as to residence shall not apply and."
        I have already explained this Amendment to the House. It deals in conjunction with another Amendment which appears later with the case of the English woman who marries an alien and becomes a widow and enables her rapidly and cheaply to resume her nationality.
        Mr. DICKINSON: I have put down an Amendment, after the word "dissolved" to insert the words "by divorce or judicial separation," in the hope that the Colonial Secretary may see his way to accept it, but I do not wish to enter into any conflict on this question if he cannot do so. The word "dissolved" refers to divorce, and it is quite as essential from the point of view of the woman if she is judicially separated from her husband that she should have the same right of reverting to her citizenship as if she is divorced. A great many of these poor people go in for a judicial separation which is practically divorce, but if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to meet me I shall not press him.
        Mr. HARCOURT: I am afraid that a judicial separation is not a dissolution of marriage, because either of the parties can resume cohabitation at their own will, and therefore it would be altogether inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will explain to the House why it is that, now he is going to remove one grievance which women have under this Bill he cannot deal with them in exactly the same way as he deals with a child under Section 12. The provision which the right hon. Gentleman is now making is this—that a woman on becoming a widow may revert to her British nationality if she goes through all the forms of naturalisation—applying for the certificate and so on. It is quite true that later on in the Bill it is proposed that the fee payable shall be 5s. instead of £3, and that the five years' residence qualification is not to be strictly enforced. The

        1481
        extraordinary thing is that under Section 12 of the Bill you provide that although when a man becomes an alien his children naturally follow his nationality, yet any child who has ceased to be of British nationality may within one year from obtaining his majority make a declaration that he wishes to resume British nationality, and he will thereupon become a British subject. When you are going to give something to women why not treat them as favourably as you treat children? Here you provide that a child who has been forced against his will to become an alien because his father has done so may, when he reaches twenty-one years of age—
        Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Member's argument in relation to the child is applicable to the case of women who are. British subjects previously to marriage. The hon. Member is not entitled now to argue the case of the child.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: I am sorry I failed to make my point clear. My argument is this: A woman, by reason of her marriage, is forced because her husband ultimately becomes an alien to take his nationality. The same thing happens to the man's children, but when the child becomes twenty-one years of age he can, merely by making a declaration, revert to British nationality. I want to know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot enable the woman to revert to British nationality in exactly the same way?
        Mr. McKENNA: The only difference is this. In the case of the woman the Home Secretary has to exercise discretion, and he has to be satisfied that she is of good character.
        Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: Why?
        Mr. McKENNA: It is desirable British subjects should be of good character.
        Mr. TYSON WILSON: Why does not that apply also to the child?
        Mr. McKENNA: I should have thought it was unnecessary to argue the point. There are cases in which English women have married foreigners who are spies. Or they may be very undesirable persons to have as British subjects, and in these cases it is well the Secretary of State should have power to refuse British nationality. That is the sole reason for this provision, and I think it is an adequate reason.
        Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does it not apply also to the case of children?
        Mr. McKENNA: It cannot for the reason that the child—
        Mr. WEDGWOOD: A person of twenty-one is not a child.
        Mr. McKENNA: This practice is not based a priori on assumption: it is based upon experience. We do not have cases of children claiming to be British subjects who have been acting as spies. Neither do we get immoral characters among children. But we do get certain women who have been married to aliens who wish to become British subjects.
        Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), after the word "any" ["any special case"], insert the word "other."— [Mr. Harcourt.]
        Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Islington [Clause 3 in margin, leave out the words "33 Vict.," and insert "33 and 34 Vict."] is not in order.
        Mr. RADFORD: May I address you on that point?
        Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may take it from me that the words form no part of the Bill, and would be struck out if it became an Act

        CLAUSE 5.—(Persons under Disability.)
        (1) Where an alien obtains a certificate of naturalisation, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, on the application of that alien, include in the certificate the name of any child of the alien born before the date of the certificate and being a minor, and that child shall thereupon, if not already a British subject, become a British subject; but any such child may, within one year after attaining his majority, make a declaration of alienange, and shall thereupon cease to be a British subject.
        (2) The Secretary of State may, in his absolute discretion in any special case in which he thinks fit, grant a certificate of naturalisation to any minor, although the conditions required by this Act have not been complied with.
        (3) Except as provided by this Section, a certificate of naturalisation shall not be granted to any person under disability.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "may, if he thinks fit," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
        When an alien obtains a naturalisation certificate all his children become naturalised, and their names are inserted in the certificate. That is a valuable provision, because it is important to know whom you have naturalised, and it is of great importance to the children when they have to prove that they are British subjects. The object of my Amendment is to provide that instead of giving the Home Secretary a discretion in regard to the children as to whether he will include their names in the certificate, he shall, if he gives a naturalisation certificate to the father, enter the names of the children upon the certificate.
        Mr. ROTHSCHILD: I beg to second the Amendment. As the Home Secretary has told us that he sees no objection to the children becoming British subjects one year after they have attained their majority, I hope he will see his way to accept this Amendment, which is regarded as a very valuable one in the East End of London. There is no reason why, if a father chooses to become a British subject, it should not be the law that his children should also become British subjects, without leaving it to the Home Secretary to decide whether or not they should be admitted.
        Mr. McKENNA: I can assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite that the Secretary of State would in every case include all the children in the certificate except in such a case where if this Amendment were accepted he would find himself compelled to refuse the father because the child ought not to be admitted. My hon. Friend would really do harm to the cause he desires to further by this Amendment. If the Secretary of State on naturalising the father is compelled to accept all the children, his only remedy may be to refuse to naturalise the father who, on other grounds, ought to be naturalised. In practice this discretion, except in such cases as I have described, would always be exercised in favour of including all the children.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: If the right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment would endanger the naturalisation of the father, I will not press the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

        CLAUSE 6.—(Persons Previously Naturalised. [33 Vict. c. 14. s. 7.])
        An alien who has been naturalised before the passing of this Act may apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of naturalisation under this Act, and the Secretary of State may grant to him a certificate of naturalisation under this Act, and the Secretary of State may grant to him a certificate on such terms and conditions as he may think fit.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
        I move this Amendment in order to ascertain what the position will be under this Bill. At present I do not know whether a person who is naturalised under this Clause and who receives a certificate of naturalisation at the hands of the Home Secretary in this country is by law a British subject in the Colonies. It may be that in practice he is, but I do not know whether he has any right, by reason of having the certificate of naturalisation here, to be accepted in the Colonies. I understand that the object of the Clause is that if a person in a colony holds a certificate of naturalisation there prior to the passing of this Bill and wants to avail himself of naturalisation here, he will have to apply for a certificate under this Bill. Will it be necessary for those who at present have old certificates granted by the Home Secretary in this country to obtain fresh certificates under this Bill in order to be regarded as British subjects in the Colonies?
        Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment, but for a very different reason. There is a sentiment in this Clause which I am sorry to see scattered throughout the Bill with a degree of profusion which is alarming. There is a great deal too much of legislation of the kind of this Clause which gives power to the Secretary of State to do anything he likes. He can admit whom he likes, and keep out whom he likes. I should prefer a more direct and simple Bill to the effect that my right hon. Friend should have complete jurisdiction and need not consult anyone and so end it and I daresay he would prefer it too. The latter part is what I object to. The Secretary of State may grant a certificate on such terms and conditions as he may think fit. These powers are given far too freely nowadays and I very much regret it.
        Mr. HARCOURT: The object of the Clause is to deal with those cases, which have produced this Bill, of persons living in our Dominions who have been naturalised there and up to now have been unable to obtain British naturalisation. Under this Clause a certificate can be granted to them by the Home Secretary making them citizens of the Empire as a result of the naturalisation which they have acquired in past years in the Dominion. It is unnecessary that any certificate should be acquired in the Dominions themselves because the Dominions have accepted British naturalisation as running throughout the Empire as a whole.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: Apart from the passing of this Bill?
        Mr. HARCOURT: Yes.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: And the passing of the Bill makes no difference in the matter.
        Mr. HARCOURT: None whatever.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

        CLAUSE 7.—(Revocation of Certificate of Naturalisation.)
        (1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, the Secretary of State may by order revoke the certificate, and the order of revocation shall have effect from such date as the Secretary of State may direct.
        (2) Where the Secretary of State revokes a certificate of naturalisation, he may order the certificate to be given up and cancelled; and any person refusing or neglecting to give up the certificate shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
        Mr. ROTHSCHILD: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "to the Secretary of State," and to insert instead thereof the words "after proceedings taken for the purpose in accordance with rules of court made under Section 29 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879."
        It seems to me it would be much better if everything were not left entirely to the Secretary of State, and the object of my Amendment is to take away from him this power to annul a certificate of naturalisation. It seems to me that if a case is made out in the Law Courts that a certificate of naturalisation has been acquired by
        1486
        fraud, certainly that certificate should be withdrawn, but I do not think it should be left to the Secretary of State.
        Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment. The remarks I made on the previous Amendment apply here.
        Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Member that it was no part of the action of the Secretary of State to obtain these powers for himself. They have been conferred upon him by Parliament, which has enacted that he shall have a discretion in granting a certificate. This Clause provides that where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation has been obtained by false representations or fraud, the Secretary of State may by order revoke the certificate. I suggest that if the Secretary of State has the major power, that is to say, the discretion in granting the certificate, if he has been led to grant the certificate by false representations or fraud, he should be empowered to revoke it. I cannot see a shred of argument in support of the Amendment.

        CLAUSE 8.—(Power of Governments of British Possessions to Grant Certificates of Imperial Naturalisation.)
        (1) The Government of any British Possession shall have the same power to grant a certificate of naturalisation as the Secretary of State has under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to the grant and revocation of such a certificate shall apply accordingly, with the substitution of the Government of the Possession for the Secretary of State, and the Possession for the United Kingdom, and also, in a Possession where any language is recognised as on an equality with the English language, with the substitution of the English language or that language for the English language:
        Provided that, in any British Possession other than British India and a Dominion specified in the First Schedule to this Act, the powers of the Government of the Possession under this Section shall be exercised by the Governor or a person acting under his authority, but shall be subject in each case to the approval of the Secretary of State, and any certificate proposed to be granted shall be submitted to him for his approval.
        (2) Any certificate of naturalisation granted under this Section shall have the same effect as a certificate of naturalisation granted by the Secretary of State under this Act.
        Mr. RADFORD: I beg to move, at the end of the first paragraph of Sub-section (1) to insert the words, "and also in a Possession where no language is recognised as on an equality with the English language without requiring an adequate knowledge of that language."
        The power proposed to be conferred on the Governments of British Possessions is, if I may be allowed to say so, wrongly described in the note as "certificates of Imperial naturalisation." These words do not occur elsewhere in the Bill, and I hope my right hon. Friend will pay attention to that. I do not want to repeat what I said on the previous Clause, but I am honestly concerned in the affairs of the Empire, and I am considering the case of the man who desires to become a British subject in a British Possession where English is not known, or very little known or spoken. I wish to know why an adequate knowledge of the English language should be required of the applicant for naturalisation in a case where he may be in a community numbering millions, of whom only a few have a knowledge of the English language. In the earlier Debate the Home Secretary did not say a word with respect to that difficulty. I assure him that it is a serious difficulty put forward in all good faith. I desire to have an answer upon it, and in the absence of an answer it seems to me to be unnecessary that British citizenship should be made to depend upon an adequate knowledge of the English language which, under the circumstances, may be of no use whatever to the intending British subject.
        Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment. Although the Amendment is perfectly intelligible, yet when inserted in the Sub-section it will make very strange English indeed, and I do not know that it will impress the people who are expected to have an adequate knowledge of the English language. The Subsection will read:
        "… and also, in a Possession where any language is recognised as on an equality with the English language, with the substitution of the English language or that language for the English language, and also in a Possession where no language is recognised as on
        1488
        an equality with the English language without requiring an adequate knowledge of that language."
        All that sounds unintelligible. I would like to give one or two other instances. Take the case of Hong Kong. A man who speaks pidgin-English would not be able to pass muster.
        Mr. HOLT Mr. HOLT indicated dissent.
        Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member for Hexham, who leads in a great many matters on this side of the House, tells me that pidgin-English would be regarded as sufficient to pass this simple test. I may say without any egotism that I am one of the few Members who could address the House in pidgin-English, only it is too late.
        A Chinaman born in Hong Kong would of course be a British citizen although he did not know a single word of English, not even pidgin-English; but a Chinaman coming from the mainland although he might know pidgin-English would not be able to be naturalised. When you come to Shanghai where it is not a colony but a settlement, I do not know what difficulties there would be, or how they would be overcome. In the European settlement they use the French language in one portion, the English language in another, and the American language in a third. We shall get into difficulties. They have no legislatures. They cannot pass laws. It is not like Canada, Australia, and the Cape. They are ruled almost entirely from here. The same applies in the Straits, and I do submit that while here we of course have a right to be fairly strict with regard to our own country, it would lead, I am perfectly sure, to most extraordinary complications when you seek to carry it out in some of our Eastern possessions. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman can throw some light on the subject.
        Mr. HARCOURT: The effect of the Amendment if it were inserted in the Bill would be that in the great majority of the colonies, including the self-governing Dominions of Australia and New Zealand, where English is the only official language, an alien could be naturalised without possessing any knowledge of the English language. It is difficult to understand why is should be proposed to have a lower standard of fitness for British citizenship in purely English colonies than for those in the United Kingdom, and in the case of the Chinaman born in Hong Kong, he

        1489
        is born a British subject. There is no question of naturalisation. If a Chinaman comes into Hong Kong it is no special reason why you should offer him British citizenship unless he is going to qualify by a knowledge of the English language, to which much importance is attached in the colonies; and on that ground I do not think this is an Amendment which should be made.
        Question "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
        Mr. STEWART: I beg to move in Subsection (1), second paragraph, to leave out the words "or a person acting under his authority."
        These words do not seem to me to be very necessary. It might so be that a duty of this sort might fall into the hands of some subordinate person, and I think it should be fixed on the Governor. In this country it is fixed on the Secretary of State. It does not prevent him employing subordinate officers, but in the colonies I think it should be fixed on the Governor.
        Mr. GRETTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member knows well that in many of our tropical Crown Colonies it is necessary—at comparatively short intervals for the Governor to be absent on leave. In this case it would be impossible for any naturalisation to be effected in his absence if the Amendment were inserted in the Bill. It is not reasonable to insist that the Governor should always be the officer concerned. It would be quite natural in these Colonies that the matter should be placed in the hands of the Colonial Secretary, because there is a real safeguard in these cases in that the ultimate approval of the naturalisation is with the Secretary of State in this country, and the hon. Member can be quite confident that the duty would not be delegated to any minor officer by a Governor. It is, however, advisable that he should be able to delegate it.
        Mr. STEWART: So long as the right hon. Gentleman assures me that it is not to be delegated to some minor official who might act in some irresponsible way I will not press my Amendment.

        CLAUSE 9.—(Application of Part II. to Self-Governing Dominions.)
        (1) This Part of this Act shall not, nor shall any certificate of naturalisation granted thereunder, have effect within any of the Dominions specified in the First Schedule to this Act, unless the Legislature of that Dominion adopts this Part of this Act.
        (2) Where the Legislature of any such Dominion has adopted this Part of this Act, the Government of the Dominion shall have the like powers to make regulations with respect to certificates of naturalisation and to oaths of allegiance as are conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State.
        (3) The Legislature of any such Dominion which adopts this Part of this Act may provide how and by what Department of the Government the powers conferred by this Part of this Act on the Government of a British Possession are to be exercised.
        (4) The Legislature of any such Dominion may at any time rescind the adoption of this Part of this Act, provided that no such rescission shall prejudicially affect any legal rights existing at the time of such rescission.
        Mr. LYNCH: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out the words
        "The Legislature of any such Dominion may at any time rescind the adoption of this Part of this Act, provided that"
        and to insert instead thereof the words
        "In the event of the Legislature of any such Dominion at any time rescinding the adoption of this Part of this Act."
        I think it might save time if the right hon. Gentleman would accept this. I am surprised that hon. Members laugh because it is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. It is really to remove verbiage. The object of the Amendment is that whereas in the original draft words have been introduced which seem to indicate that it is within the power of this Parliament to permit the Parliament of a Dominion to make a law or alter the law and that that alteration shall be made solely by the permission of this Parliament, and whereas such an effect is not intended even by the Secretary of State himself I have adopted a form of words which carries out the whole intention of this Sub-section of the Clause

        1491
        and which yet avoids that kind of invidious reference to the Dominions. I think there could only be three reasons for inserting language such as appears in the original draft. One of these is carelessness, the second is want of knowledge, and the third would be malice prepense. I do not know which of these is actuating the Secretary of State in that unwillingness which he seems to evince to accept my very reasonable Amendment.
        Mr. HUGH LAW: I beg to second the Amendment.
        Mr. HARCOURT: In Sub-section (2) of this Clause 9 various results follow upon the adoption of this part of the Act by the self-governing Dominions. It was feared by some of those Dominions that the words of that Clause might seem to prohibit them from subsequently rescinding anything they had adopted of their own free choice. This was inserted at the request of some of the Dominions to make it clear that they had power to rescind. It has been submitted to all the Dominions. Not one has taken objection, and several of them have requested its insertion. That is the sole ground on which it is here, and on that ground I hope it will be retained.

        CLAUSE 10.—(National Status of Married Women. [33 Vict. c. 14. s. 10 (1).])
        The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien.
        Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "be deemed to be" ["be deemed to be a British subject"] and to insert instead thereof the word "become."
        I do not propose to repeat the arguments I used earlier, but I shall shortly explain the effect of the Amendment. I propose to move further Amendments so that the Clause will run, "The wife of a British subject shall become a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall become an alien, if and when she shall have made a declaration that she desires to become a British subject or an alien (as the case may be), and such declaration shall have been received, registered, and certified by the Secretary of State in accordance with
        1492
        regulations made under the provisions of this Act." She has a choice when she marries of saying whether she wishes to claim her nationality or adopt the nationality of her husband.
        Mr. GLYN-JONES: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that what he said on the Motion to recommit the Bill will provide very little consolation for a large number of women who feel that they are suffering a real, practical disability under this Bill. It is also true that women of the country in enormous numbers who are not themselves affected by the Bill, who are not married to aliens, who are never likely to be married to aliens, resent bitterly the difference of treatment which this Bill metes out to the adult woman compared with that of the child. The right hon. Gentleman said that in every civilised country in the world the wife must necessarily follow the nationality of her husband; but why? At any rate in this country a great deal of hardship follows this practice. In the constituency I represent there are, I think I may safely say, a thousand—yes, I think thousands—of British-born Jewesses who are married to Jews who have not become naturalised and have lost their British nationality in consequence. There is not one in a hundred of them who is effected at all by the suggestion that if she does not take the nationality of her husband she will not be able to obtain any property which may be left under the law of her husband. They are not troubled about that, but they are about this: that under our Insurance Act at present the woman is entitled to full benefits, but the moment she marries an alien she loses these full benefits and all the other rights which her unmarried sister possesses.
        I think the right hon. Gentleman used the expression "the contract of marriage that was entered into," but why should that contract carry with it that the woman must necessarily accept the nationality of her husband. It is said it is convenient she should have his nationality. Let her be the judge of that. This Amendment does not say she shall not take the nationality of her husband. If convenient and if to her advantage she ought to have the right to exercise her choice, and in this matter if the House resists this Amendment it is adding to the many grievances which women are feeling in this matter that they have no choice, that they are not allowed to have a voice,

        1493
        that they are forced out of their nationality. There are Members in this House, I believe, who are prepared to go to civil war because they say they are forced out of the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and yet in the next breath they are perfectly willing to vote a woman right out of her nationality against her will, simply because she marries an alien. You say that is the law. Why is it necessary that a woman living in this country with her husband shall be compelled to lose what privileges there are of British nationality because she marries? It is no answer to tell her that they do it in Germany or France or anywhere else, and that it would be inconvenient to the Colonies I think makes not the least difference.
        Mr. McKENNA: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend raising this point, I quite understand, and I do not in the least suggest he was wrong in doing so, holding the views he does. I do not in the least suggest either that if he carried his point it would go one step towards altering the law. Whether the Bill would be proceeded with is quite another matter. It obviously could not. This Bill is a Bill to declare the British existing law. But we have accepted some Amendments to which we think we can get the Dominions to agree. They are not very serious Amendments. In spite of their having accepted the Bill in its present form we have run that risk, but we could not run the risk of accepting an Amendment so far-reaching as this Amendment. This Bill is not introduced as an opportunity to amend the British law of nationalisation, but it is putting in the form of a Bill the existing law. If my hon. Friend and those who agree with him insist on taking this occasion not to carry this Bill in the form which the Dominions have accepted, but in the form which he and his Friends wish to have it, all I can tell them is that they jeopardise and probably kill the Bill.
        If it is required to have an Amendment of our British nationality it is open to my hon. Friend to introduce a Bill or to press upon the Government to introduce a Bill for that purpose; but this Bill was not introduced with that object. I really do not think this is the proper occasion to argue the merits, but on the merits of the case, if a woman on marriage does not adopt the nationality of her husband very serious questions of domicile and property immediately arise. Now we have to remember that our existing laws in relation to
        1494
        domicile have been framed upon the assumption that a woman does adopt the nationality of her husband. When my hon. Friend says that it was not the law until 1870 I do not think he is quite right. It did not become Statute law until 1870, but I think opinions could be quoted to show that it was the law before 1870. However, if we made this change now, it could not be made without many other alterations in the law. The advantage of having uniform nationality for husband and wife has been so universally recognised that although it was not the Statute law in the United States until 1907, the United States in 1907, at the height of the feminist movement made this very alteration in the law for the sake of uniformity. This Bill in this form having been submitted to the Dominions and agreed to by them, and having been introduced for the purpose of establishing a uniform system of law throughout the Empire, I do appeal to my hon. Friends not to take advantage of this opportunity to endeavour to convert this Bill into a Bill for amending the British law of nationality.
        Mr. HILLS: The Home Secretary started by giving two reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted. His first was that this was an agreed Bill with the Dominions. I believe it is the case that Canada has passed the Bill with great reluctance. I believe Australia has not yet passed the Bill. It is only in a country where woman suffrage prevails that a question of this sort would be raised, and I do not think the acceptance of an Amendment of this sort would wreck the Bill. Then he said we could not amend the Bill because this Bill was a consolidating Bill. It is not. It is called "an Act to consolidate and amend the law, etc." It is in certain ways an amending Bill, and this Amendment is not outside its scope. His third reason was, I think, equally groundless. He said if we carried the Amendment questions of great difficulty of property and domicile would arise. Surely he knows that domicile is a different thing from nationality. A person is domiciled in that place where he intends to reside. A person can reside in France and retain his British nationality. The two questions are perfectly distinct. Questions of marriage depend on domicile, not on nationality. Questions of marriage, since the passing of the Married Women's Property Act, are not affected by nationality.
        Sir A. MARKHAM: I think my hon. Friend has forgotten Clause 5 of the Finance Bill.
        Mr. HILLS: I am afraid I have forgotten Clause 5 of the Finance Bill; I do not know what it is. The Colonial Secretary also gave several reasons. He said all civilised nations adopted this rule. I did not think that England was not civilised until 1869. I did not think that civilisation dated from the passing of the Elementary Education Act. The second difficulty he raised was that questions about children would arise. The law is that the child follows the father's nationality. No question about children would arise even if the husband and wife were of different nationalities. The child will follow the father's nationality, subject of course to Sub-section 1 of Clause 1 of this Bill, that all persons who are born within the allegiance are natural-born British subjects. His third reason was that the whole question was examined in 1869, that very eminent lawyers voted in favour of it, and he sees no reason to make a change. Well, a good deal has happened in the last thirty-five years and in no direction have bigger changes come to pass than in the views taken of women's rights. Surely in the last thirty-five years a completely different view has arisen of the legal rights of women and a very much broader view is now taken of that subject. What was right in 1869 is not necessarily right now. This proposed change in the law, I believe, would create no legal difficulties, and it is demanded by a very large majority of women in this country. I do not think it would wreck the Bill, and I appeal to the Government, if they cannot support it, to let the House of Commons decide. If we have a free division and the Government Whips are not put on I believe the House will carry this Amendment, and do so without imperilling the Bill.
        1.0 A.M.
        Sir A. MOND: I would like to endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend who has just spoken that we should be allowed to have a free vote on this subject. Otherwise many of us will be reluctantly compelled to vote for the Amendment whatever the result may be. I have listened to the two speeches made from the Front Bench on this subject, and neither of them seemed to me convincing. The Home Secretary's argument was a curious one to come from a Liberal Minister. It was that what was decided by the House of Commons forty-four years ago should be good enough for the House of Commons now. A great
        1496
        many things have happened in those forty-four years to very seriously affect this question. Forty-four years ago the whole position of women was very different from what it is to-day. I cannot accept the argument that we should follow other countries who are very much more backward than we are in many respects, and many of which have not a Married Women's Property Act. There are two points which are certainly essential: one theoretical and the other practical. We have recognised in the last forty-four years that the individual existence of a woman as a separate entity, and we are bound to recognise more and more the economic position of women. Reference has been made to the Old Age Pensions Act, and this, I think, backs my view in this matter. I have had cases of British women having married aliens, and then discovering, when they came to apply for old age pensions, that they could not get it because their husbands were aliens. These women, when they married, could not have known that the Old Age Pensions Act would be passed and that by marrying aliens they would deprive themselves of their pensions. The Home Secretary challenged the statement of the law made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras. I have in my hand a quotation from a very eminent authority on this subject. Cockburn says:—
        "By the common law of England marriage had no effect on the nationality of women. An English woman marrying an alien still remained a British subject, an alien woman marrying a British subject remained none the less an alien until 7 and 8 Vic. c. 66."
        The Report of the Departmental Committee appointed in 1899, says:—
        "By Section 46 of the Act of 1844 it was provided that any woman married to a natural-born subject or person naturalised should be deemed and taken to be herself naturalised and have all the rights and privileges of a natural-born British subject. No provision was made for the case of a natural-born or naturalised British woman marrying an alien. The common law still governed her station and she did not lose her British nationality."
        These authorities are clear on the point that we made a grievous blunder in 1870, and there is no reason why we should not put that blunder right in 1914. When we have an opportunity of remedying a grievance like this I do not see why we should not do so because of some alleged idea that the Dominions would not agree to it. At the present time it is extremely doubtful whether they have accepted the principle. I have here a copy of a resolution passed by a large meeting at Melbourne protesting and asking that the Bill should be rejected as insulting to women. We

        1497
        cannot really be asked to perpetuate an injustice. Supposing we introduced another Bill, an amending Bill, what would be the conditions? It would immediately make a hole in your Imperial law. You would immediately have the English law different to the law of the Dominions. I am astonished at this argument being raised. Surely we may just as well alter the law now than at another time. That being so, I for one will not hesitate to vote for the Amendment.
        Mr. HARCOURT: Perhaps I may be allowed to restate some of the very serious objections to a change of this law which is universal throughout the world. You will raise at once questions as to what is to be the nationality of children born of two parents whose nationality is different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Obviously it would have to be decided by law which nationality the child was to obtain—whether it is to be that of the father or the mother. There are always very difficult questions raised in the case of persons of dual nationality. Undoubtedly the woman in this case would suffer. You will force other countries to recognise the wife of their national as being a national of her original country. Then there is always the question of whether you are to give the child a dual nationality. Great difficulty will arise as to the inheritance of property by an alien wife. There will be imposed on her very often a very serious liability to taxation. She will be liable to death duties and income tax in other countries owing to the fact of her being the wife of an alien. An alien here would be liable to taxation in her own country and also liable to taxation in this country. She might also lose the protection of her husband's relations, and not be in a position to use that of her own. Jurisdiction in law will become complicated, especially in matters of extradition, and certainly the determination of domicile will be confused by the double nationality.
        The hon. Member for Durham said we had made an advance in the question of women's rights during the last thirty-five years. I admit that quite frankly. In no country has the advance been so great as in the United States, yet, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the United States in the last seven years has found it necessary by Statute to make it quite clear that an American woman marrying an alien has to accept the
        1498
        nationality of the man she has married. My hon. Friend who spoke last thought that the Commonwealth of Australia might object to this Clause. On the contrary, this is already the law by their own Statute in Australia, and in Canada also by their previous Statute which they have passed since they attained self-governing power and capacity. The hon. Member alluded to what he thought was a fact that an Englishwoman maintained her British nationality after marriage to an alien up to the year 1870. That indeed was not the case. In 1865 Lord Clarendon was asked by Lord Blomfield, our Minister in Prussia, to send for the information of the Government of Prussia a statement of what the English naturalisation laws and the status of married women were. Lord Clarendon's despatch to Lord Blomfield begins in this way, "First, that a woman British-born subject who has married a foreigner possesses the status of her husband and is not entitled to claim the protection of Her Majesty's legations abroad." This was in 1865, four years before the Royal Commission sat. On the Report of the Royal Commission was founded the Act of 1870 and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras thought that this subject of the nationality of an English woman married to an alien was not much considered by Parliament at that time. But indeed he is wrong. It was considered by four very great lawyers. I have now been able to find short quotations from them. The Attorney-General, Sir P. Collier, said:—
        "It was impossible to provide against every conceivable case of hardship but they must consider what rule was most, expedient. In his opinion the balance of convenience was in favour of enacting that the wife should take the status of the husband. If she did not there would be difficult and complicated questions of domicile."
        The Solicitor-General, Sir J. Coleridge, said:—
        "All the rights and privileges of the parties were protected by the Bill."
        Sir Roundell Palmer, afterwards Lord Selborne, said:—
        "These questions were very carefully considered in the Commission and proposed that they should be settled in accordance with the universal principles of private International law. It was quite settled as a matter of International law that the status of the wife followed the status of the husband. He hoped the House would adhere to some general principles and not be effected by theoretical cases."
        Mr. Jessel, afterwards the Master of the Rolls, said:—
        "The object of the Bill was to amend our naturalisation law so as to make it conform more nearly to International law, and that it was necessary to adopt the general rule that the wife should follow the nationality of the husband."

        1499
        The effect of the debate and of these opinions was summarised in this House by a distinguished Member of Parliament of that day in these words:—
        "Inconvenience may occur in some cases but he did not see what other course could be adopted than that of making the nationality of the wife follow that of the husband."
        That was the opinion of the Member for Stroud, Mr. Dickinson, father of my hon. Friend. With such admirable advice as that founded on the opinion of four such able lawyers, I would beg the House not to-day to depart from a decision so well arrived at.
        Mr. AMERY: I do not wish to touch on the theoretical side of the question, but both the mover and the seconder of this Amendment based it on the practical hardship suffered by certain women in this country. All the cases to which they referred were the cases of women married to aliens, evidently permanently residing in this country. It seems to me very undesirable that you should encourage aliens, permanently residing in this country, not to acquire British citizenship. I know that a certain small expenditure is involved, as was, no doubt, so in the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, of the man who had been sixty-seven years in this country, and who married an English wife. But I believe the total expense involved was equal to eight weeks' old age pension for them, and, in that case, I should have thought there would have been no difficulty in borrowing the sum required on the strength of the next eight weeks' instalments.
        But, while the grievance which the right hon. Gentleman and the seconder are trying to remove is a comparatively small one, this Bill, I submit, is intended to remove a very great and admitted hardship with which the different Governments of the Empire have tried to deal for a number of years; it is a hardship accumulating at the rate of several hundred thousand cases in the course of a few years, namely, I mean the people who become British subjects in Canada and in other Dominions, and are not British subjects here, including people as distinguished as one very eminent Canadian Minister, who is, I believe, in London at this moment. It is a very real hardship, and one which, owing to the difficulty of arriving at an agreement between a number of Governments, and of getting that agreement
        1500
        carried out by legislation, has defeated the Imperial Conference for a period of something like ten years.
        It seems to me that when, at last agreement had been arrived at, and the Governments were got together to frame something like the foundations of a common citizenship for the whole of the British Empire, it would be disastrous if, for the sake of removing some small local grievance, or for a further step in the theoretical position of women, we endangered that measure in any degree, and threw back the whole position to what it was before. It seems to me that when we have arrived at a common ground of citizenship through this measure, it will always be open for hon. Members here to raise a further suggestion for Amendment, and to enlist the support of people in Australia and elsewhere. I do trust that the House in this case will look at the wider Imperial considerations, and at the immense difficulties that have faced all the Governments of the Empire in coming to an agreement, and not try to destroy the Bill for the sake of a slight theoretical advance.
        Mr. HOLT: My first objection to the Amendment is that it really does not seem, as a matter of drafting, to be quite successful, for the Amendment will declare that the wife of a British subject shall become a British subject. As a matter of fact, in more than nine cases out of ten she is a British subject before she is married. Therefore, she cannot become a British subject and the Amendment, from that point of view, is absurd. There is another case, which the hon. Gentlemen apparently have not considered. If an American woman marries a British subject, unless she makes a specific declaration, she has no nationality whatever, because, by the law of the country to which she belongs, she has adopted the nationality of her husband and, having failed to make a declaration, she has not, by the law of Great Britain, obtained the nationality of Great Britain. Therefore, she must be deemed to be a person of no nationality whatever. That would be the effect of the Amendment. But, I wish to oppose it altogether on its merits; I think the idea that a woman is to have a different nationality from her husband is extremely objectionable. It does seem to me that the idea of a husband and wife, living together under the same roof, on the most intimate terms possible, are

        1501
        actually to exercise separate nationalities, is to strike at the root idea of marriage altogether.
        The case is put forward to us as arising out of the claim of women for citizenship. Well, but, suppose both husband and wife have a strong opinion on citizenship, and perhaps exercise the duties and responsibilities of citizenship to the highest possible degree, and the two people belong to separate nationalities; how on earth can it be done? It is quite impossible that a husband and wife should be exercising citizenship in the highest sense of the word under separate nationalities. The whole case is put forward on the basis that women marry men who have no sense of citizenship whatever, and who do not know, and do not care. Speaking as one who has married an alien, I cannot imagine anything more inconvenient than to have separate nationalities. The case was made by the hon. Member for Stepney, arising out of the Old Age Pensions Act and the Insurance Act. Well, when those Acts were before the House I thought that the separate treatment of aliens was a mistake, and that any person domiciled in this country, of whatever nationality, ought to have the same position, because they were making the same provision. If these cases were dealt with in that spirit, the whole of the grievances alleged in regard to old age pensions and insurance would disappear at once, and it would be only a question of amending the Bills. I hope the Government will resist the Amendment on its merits, and have nothing to do with it.
        Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I rise to support this Amendment, on the ground that women ought to have the right to exercise their will in this matter, and ought not to be disposed of by the operation of law. After all, a woman, in my opinion, is just as much entitled as a man to claim to be an independent being on her own account, and not merely an adjunct of her husband. An Englishman going to Germany and marrying a German woman there would consider it a gross injustice if by mere operation of law, he was declared to have lost his English citizenship and to have become a German. Nevertheless, some of us think it the most natural thing in the world to tell an English woman that if she chooses to marry an alien she must be punished by loosing her British citizenship. I certainly cannot be one to support any such doctrine. We have been told
        1502
        that in 1870 the most eminent lawyers argued this case and decided that there would be a balance of convenience by altering the law which had existed up to that time, and deprived women in these cases of their British citizenship. We were not told that women were asked to express any opinion of it, to argue the case, or to plead the case at all. Women are not given the opportunity of doing so now. The matter is to be settled here, before even those dominions where women have the vote have had an opportunity through their legislatures where they are represented of expressing their view upon it.
        We are told that very serious consequences will arise if the women and the men are of different nationalities, that is, if this Clause be altered according to this Amendment. These consequences existed in this country, and in the United States for long enough, and they did not produce any very disastrous results. We could face those results again, if necessary, but I venture to say that very serious consequences will arise if this Clause be passed in the form in which it is brought to us. There is a very great feeling among women outside against this. Surely, there is already enough bitterness on the part of women outside with regard to questions affecting their position in the country. This is not the time, surely, to pass a law in this House which is utterly opposed by the great majority of the organised women in this country.
        I venture to say it would be a very great mistake and a very great disaster to the country if we were to go on and in matters of this sort were to fly in the face of the opinion of women in this country. We are always told that man would do justice. Well, man would not treat man in this way. Men would not submit to losing their nationality simply because they married an Indian, and it is entirely wrong for a man Parliament elected by men to force that on women.
        Finally, I wish to join in the appeal to the Government to let us have a free vote on this question. It is quite untenable and absurd to say that if this Amendment were carried this Bill must fall. It is simply another example, it seems to me, of the executive coming forward and dictating to the Legislature at every point, and saying: "Unless we have our will on this and that point the world will come to an end." I for one shall vote for this Amendment whether the Government put

        1503
        on their Whips or not. If they insist on putting them on and are defeated, very well, the consequences will be on them and not upon us. I shall vote against them in any case.
        Amendment made: At the end of the Clause insert the words, "Provided that where a man ceases during the continuance of his marriage to be a British subject it shall be lawful for his
        Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 59.

        Division No. 205.]

        AYES.

        [1.23 a.m

        Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

        Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

        O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

        Acland, Francis Dyke

        Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

        O'Doherty, Philip

        Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

        Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

        O'Donnell, Thomas

        Amery, L. C. M. S.

        Hazleton, Richard

        O'Dowd, John

        Barnston, Harry

        Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

        O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

        Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

        Henry, Sir Charles

        O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

        Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

        Higham, John Sharp

        O'Shee, James

        Boland, John Pius

        Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

        O'Sullivan, Timothy

        Bowerman, Charles W.

        Holt, Richard Durning

        Pollard, Sir George H.

        Brady, Patrick Joseph

        Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

        Raffan, Peter Wilson

        Burns, Rt. Hon. John

        Hughes, Spencer Leigh

        Reddy, Michael

        Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

        Illingworth, Percy H.

        Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

        Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

        Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

        Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

        Clough, William

        Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

        Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

        Crumley, Patrick

        Joyce, Michael

        Robinson, Sidney

        Cullinan, John

        Kilbride, Denis

        Rothschild, Lionel de

        Dairymple, Viscount

        King, Joseph

        Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

        Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

        Lardner, James C. R.

        Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

        Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

        Levy, Sir Maurice

        Scanlan, Thomas

        Devlin, Joseph

        Lundon, Thomas

        Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

        Doris, William

        Lynch, Alfred

        Sheehy, David

        Duffy, William J.

        Maclean, Donald

        Sherwell, Arthur James

        Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

        Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

        Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

        Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

        MacVeagh, Jeremiah

        Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

        Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

        McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

        Stewart, Gershom

        Essex, Richard Walter

        M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

        Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

        Esslemont, George Birnie

        Meagher, Michael

        Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

        Ffrench, Peter

        Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

        Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

        Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

        Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.)

        Verney, Sir Harry

        Flavin, Michael Joseph

        Millar, James Duncan

        Waring, Walter

        France, Gerald Ashburner

        Molloy, Michael

        Webb, H.

        Gilmour, Captain John

        Muldoon, John

        White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

        Gladstone, W. G. C.

        Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

        White, Patrick (Meath, North)

        Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

        Murphy, Martin J.

        Wing, Thomas Edward

        Gulland, John Wiliam

        Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

        Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

        Nolan, Joseph

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

        Hackett, John

        Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

        William Jones and Captain Guest.

        NOES.

        Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

        Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

        Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

        Barnes, George N.

        Hudson, Walter

        Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

        Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

        Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

        Rowlands, James

        Booth, Frederick Handel

        Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

        Rowntree, Arnold

        Bridgeman, William Clive

        Jewett, Frederick William

        Sanders, Robert Arthur

        Bryce, J. Annan

        Kenyon, Barnet

        Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

        Cassel, Felix

        Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

        Shortt, Edward

        Chancellor, Henry George

        Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

        Sutton, John E.

        Chapple, Dr. William Allen

        Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

        Toulmin, Sir George

        Cory, Sir Clifford John

        Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

        Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

        Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

        Marshall, Arthur Harold

        Watson, Hon. W.

        Dawes, J. A.

        Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

        Wedgwood, Josiah C.

        Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

        Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

        Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

        Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

        Norman, Sir Henry

        Williams, Aneurin (Durham. N. W.)

        Elverston, Sir Harold

        Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

        Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

        Glanville, Harold James

        Pratt, J. W.

        Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

        Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

        Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

        Yeo, Alfred William

        Goldsmith, Frank

        Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

        Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

        Radford, George Heynes

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

        Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

        Rendall, Athelstan

        Dickinson and Mr. Hills.

        Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

        wife to make a declaration that she desires to retain British nationality, and thereupon she shall be deemed to remain a British subject."—[Mr. Harcourt.]

    PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE.

      CLAUSE 19.—(Regulations by Secretary of State.)
      (1) The Secretary of State may make Regulations generally for carrying into effect the objects of this Act, and in particular with respect to the following matters:—

      (a) The form and registration of certificates of naturalisation granted by the Secretary of State:

      (b) The form and registration of declarations of alienage and declarations of resumption of British nationality:

      (c) The registration by officers in the Diplomatic or Consular Service of His Majesty of the births and deaths of British subjects born or dying out of His Majesty's Dominions:

      (d) The time within which the oath of allegiance is to be taken after the grant of a certificate of naturalisation:

      (e) The persons by whom the oath of allegiance may be administered, and the persons before whom declarations of alienage and declarations of resumption of British nationality may be made:

      (f) Whether or not oaths of allegiance are to be subscribed as well as taken, and the form in which the taking and subscription are to be attested:

      (g) The registration of oaths of allegiance:

      (h) The persons by whom certified copies of oaths of allegiance may be given; and the proof in any legal proceeding of any such oaths:

      (i) The transmission to the United Kingdom, for the purpose of registration or safe keeping, or of being produced as evidence, of any declarations, certificates or oaths, made granted or taken out of the United Kingdom in pursuance of this Act or of any Act hereby repealed, or of any copies thereof, also of copies of entries contained in any register kept out of the United Kingdom in pursuance of this Act or any Act hereby repealed:

      (j) With the consent of the Treasury, the imposition and application of fees in respect of any registration authorised to be made by this Act or any Act hereby repealed, and in respect of the making of any declaration or the grant of any certificate
      1506
      authorised to be made or granted by this Act or any Act hereby repealed, and in respect of the administration or registration of any oath.

      (2) Any regulation made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of this Act shall be of the same force as if it had been enacted therein, but shall not, so far as respects the imposition of fees, be in force in any British Possession, and shall not, so far as respects any other matter, be in force in any British possession in which any Act or ordinance, or, in the case of a Dominion specified in the First Schedule to this Act, any regulation made by the Government of the Dominion under Part II. of this Act, to the contrary of, or inconsistent with, any such regulation may for the time being be in force.
      (3) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under any Act hereby repealed shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made under this Act.
      Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) paragraph (b), after the word "resumption" ["and declarations of resumption"] insert the words "or retention."
      At the end of Sub-section (1) paragraph (g), insert the words, "Provided that in the case of a woman who was a British subject previously to her marriage to an alien, and whose husband has died or whose marriage has been dissolved, the fee for the grant of a certificate shall not exceed five shillings."—[Mr. Harcourt.]

      CLAUSE 28.—(Repeal, Short Title, and Commencement.)
      (1) The enactments mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act are hereby re pealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
      (2) This Act may be cited as the British nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914.
      (3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and fifteen.
      Mr. RADFORD: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "and Status of Aliens."
      This is a Clause which deals with the short title of the Bill, and the short title of a Bill is one of the most useful reforms in the form of legislation that we have

      1507
      had of recent years. It is very convenient to have a title to your Bill which can be easily cited and is not too long. I submit that the title we have here, namely, "The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act," is too long to serve its purposes as a short title, and it would be much better if it were truncated in the manner I suggest. Let hon. Members bear in mind that a short title is not a table of contents but is a convenient form by which you may refer to an Act.
      Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. HARCOURT: It is not a matter of great importance, because a short title is only a statutory knick-knack, but I think it is desirable to include the words "Status of Aliens" in the title, because, if you look at Clauses 17 and 18, they deal specifically with that subject, and anybody who wanted to refer to any Act dealing with the status of aliens would be inconvenienced if he did not find it in the short title.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      SECOND SCHEDULE.—OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
      "I. A.B., swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Fifth, his Heirs and Successors, according to law. So help me GOD."
      Mr. RADFORD Mr. RADFORD rose to move to leave out the words "So help me God."
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Amendments are consequential upon an earlier Amendment which was not in Order.
      Mr. RADFORD: On a point of Order. May I say I do not understand that issue at all for this reason—
      Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go back upon that. I call upon the hon. Member to move his last Amendment.
      Mr. RADFORD: May I be allowed to say a word on a point of Order? The fact is, this second Schedule has got a new form of oath not known to the Legislature, and which is altogether a mistake. I am not suggesting that we should substitute a form of affirmation for a form of oath, but I am finding fault with the form
      1508
      of oath here prescribed, and, if in order, I want to say a word on it.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That part is in order. I thought his Amendment was adding the affirmation to the oath.
      Mr. RADFORD: Let me explain if it is not known to hon. Members. I know it is known to the Home Secretary, and I believe I can convince him I am right. The form of oath which was in use previous to the Oaths Act of 1909 was this: "I, A.B., swear that I will so and so," and it ended with the words "So help me God." That was the sole call upon the Deity which was prescribed until the Act of 1909. The Act of 1909 introduced a new form of oath—"I, A.B., swear by Almighty God that I will do so and so" and in that case the words "So help me God" in the end were very appropriately omitted. The draftsman of this Bill, carelessly as I think, and as another instance of the punctilious accuracy shown throughout the Bill, has got this thing muddled up, and has inserted a reference to the Deity in two-places which, I think, is unseemly, and which is quite unusual, and for which there is no legal authority whatever. It is quite clear you must choose one form of oath or the other, and therefore the form of oath which is now suggested is unusual, novel, and without authority, and if it is enacted here will be enacted by the Legislature for the first time. I therefore move to omit the words "So help me God," and adopt the form of oath introduced by the Oaths Act of 1909.
      Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. McKENNA: I promised in Committee when my hon. Friend raised this point that I would consider it before the Report, and I am quite prepared to alter the form of the oath as he suggests by striking out the words, "So help me God," at the conclusion of the oath, having regard to the fact that they are in the beginning of it. It does not matter whether the words come in at the beginning or the end of the oath, but I have just consulted my right hon. Friend as to whether it would not be better to have them at the end; but, in view of the form in which my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment, I accept it. But may I beg him not to move his next?
      Question, "That those words stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

      THIRD SCHEDULE.

      Enactments Repealed.

      Session and Chapter.

      Title or Short Title.

      Extent of Repeal.

      25 Edw. 3. stat. 1

      Statute for those who are born in parts beyond the seas.

      From "and in the right of other children" to the end of the statute.

      42 Edw. 3. c. 10

      A statute made at Westminster on the first day of May in the forty-second year of King Edward III.

      The whole chapter.

      12 & 13 Will. 3. c. 2

      The Act of Settlement

      In section three the words "naturalized or."

      7 Anne c. 5

      The Foreign Protestants (Naturalization) Act, 1708.

      The whole Act.

      4 Geo. 2. c. 21

      The British Nationality Act, 1730

      The whole Act.

      33 Geo. 3. c. 21

      The British Nationality Act, 1772

      The whole Act.

      33 & 34 Vict. c. 14

      The Naturalization Act, 1870

      The whole Act.

      33 & 34 Viet. c. 102

      The Naturalization Oath Act, 1870

      The whole Act.

      58 & 59 Vict. c. 43

      The Naturalization Act, 1895

      The whole Act.

      Mr. RADFORD: I beg to move to leave out the words, "and in the right of other children," and to insert instead thereof the words, "and that all children inheritors."
      Notwithstanding the appeal of my right hon. Friend, I feel bound to move this Amendment to the Schedule with regard to the repeal of the Statute of 25 Edw. III., because here the draftsman of the Bill in a slap-dash manner has really repealed the wrong section. I can assure my right hon. Friend that if he will turn to the Statute which I have, of course, done, he will find that the Clause which begins "and in the right of other children" deals with Henry the son of John de Beaumont and with the son of Ralph D'Aubenay, and others who were living and going strong in the reign of Edward III. This law was in the nature of a Privilegium or private Act for the benefit of those persons who are long since dead and
      ".… their hones are dust,
      Their souls are with the Lord, we trust."
      There is no reason whatever for interfering with that Clause of the Statute. What should be done is that we should begin our repeal with the next paragraph, which begins "and in the right of other children inheritors." That is the general law which provides that children born abroad should be entitled to inherit in this country. That is relevant to this Bill. The other part is purely local, personal and temporary and ought not to be repealed. I should be ashamed that this should go forward to the Parliaments of the great Dominions and give them a
      1510
      notion of the slapdash and harum-scarum way in which our Bills are drafted.
      Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. McKENNA: The only effect of accepting the Amendment would be that we should still leave as part of the Statute law of this country certain interesting facts in the family history of John de Beaumont, Ralph D'Aubenay, and other interesting persons. As we are repealing the rest of this Statute, and as this is dead law, we may just as well repeal that part.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.
      Order for third reading read.
      Mr. RADFORD: On this Motion for the Third Reading I deem it my duty to say that I very much regret that we should send out to the Parliaments of our Dominions an Act which requires persons to make an oath of allegiance as a condition of their being naturalised in this Empire. There is no ground for conveying that impression. It is a wrong impression, and it is only proposed in this Bill, as I suspect, because at the date of the Naturalisation Act of 1870 there was no option for a man, if he desired to become a British subject, but to take the oath of allegiance. Since then the Oaths Act of 1888 was passed. This enabled a man either to take the oath or make an affirmation. This is a point which appeals to a very large number of people not only in this country but throughout the Dominions of the Crown—persons who are agnostics

      1511
      or persons who are peculiarly scrupulous Christians. Seeing that this is not a local Act of Parliament, but a kind of Imperial rescript applying to the whole Empire, I think it would be wise that we should, on the face of the Act, show to our brethren across the seas what is our free way, and that a man may take the oath of allegiance or make an affirmation as he pleases, just as an hon. Member at the Table of this House may either swear or affirm. I feel bound to make that protest, and I regret that under your ruling, Mr. Speaker, the House had not an opportunity of considering the matter.
      Bill read the third time, and passed.
      Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.

    COAL MINES BILL.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Mr. McKENNA: This is a very small Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I merely wish to explain that it has been rendered necessary owing to the recent disastrous explosion
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I want an explanation of Clause 3 and the first part of the Schedule. What is the meaning of substituting the words "the commencement of this Act" for "the passing of this Act"?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Act was passed on the 16th December, 1911, and it commenced on the 1st July, 1912. If my hon. Friend will turn to Section 42, Sub-section 2, to which the Schedule applies, he will see that it says: "For every single mine opened before the passing of this Act there shall be provided two main airways, etc." We now propose to make it in each case the commencement of the Act and not the passing of the Act.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Thursday).—[Mr. McKenna.]

    INEBRIATES BILL.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTrose—
    Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Member would allow me. I would like to make this statement to the hon. Member. The finance of the Bill will be in accordance with his views, but this Bill cannot go through without the general consent of the House. If I do not get the general consent of the House by appropriate Amendment in Committee the Bill cannot go through. I hope the hon. Member will allow me an opportunity of endeavouring to obtain general assent to the Bill upstairs.
    Mr. BATHURST: I should be the last person to obstruct so useful a Bill as this. My only regret is that the Second Beading has been deferred so long that it seems almost impossible to contemplate the passage of the Bill into law, bearing in mind that it contains fifty-five Clauses and two Schedules, many of which will undoubtedly require careful treatment in Committee. The only criticism I want to make now is that the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, when introducing the Second Beading of the Bill in March last, did not attempt to answer any of the many criticisms directed against this Bill when its Second Beading was last under consideration two years ago. On that occasion the Under-Secretary made a few preliminary observations which were followed by many important and detailed considerations which were not then answered by any Member of the Government and have not since been answered or attempted to be answered by the Front Bench. I only want to refer to one or two or these, particularity to the effect on local authorities. The first important question asked the Home Secretary two years ago, was, what would be the extra amount of accommodation required for confirmed inebriates? The second question put to the right hon. Gentleman was: "What is the prospective capital charge which will be thrown upon local authorities under Clause 36 of the Bill?" That is a question which has been asked by a good many local authorities and no answer has so far been vouchsafed. This expenditure may be a very heavy expenditure indeed, and it is utterly impossible on the information so far given by the Government to gauge in any way the extent of this expenditure which was to fall on the local authorities.
    The third question has been partially answered. It was, "What proportion of the total cost of maintenance in connection with certified reformatories will be borne by the Treasury and what proportion will

    1513
    have to be borne by the authorities?" The hon. Gentleman made a statement in his speech in March last to the effect that in the case of State reformatories the whole cost would be borne by the State. In the case of certified reformatories half the cost was to be so borne. I would like to point out that the Departmental Committee which considered the question in 1898 suggested that for every 2s. contributed by the State there should be no more than 1s. per week contributed by the local authorities. That is to say that two-thirds and not one-half only ought in fairness to be contributed by the State for what is essentially a national service. To turn to two minor, but not unimportant, criticisms on which no reply was given the question was asked, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick, as to who are to be the judicial guardians referred to in Clause 6 of this Bill. How are these judicial guardians to be appointed? It seemed to be assumed that persons were prepared readily to come forward.
    Mr. McKENNA: I propose to drop Clause 5 and all the consequential Clauses. The vital part of the Bill is to endeavour to secure the financial assistance of the local authorities.
    Mr. BATHURST: It is a little difficult to consider at a moment's notice a Bill which has been so emasculated. It is evident that the most contentious part of the Bill is not to be proceeded with at all.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is so; not to be proceeded with.
    Mr. BATHURST: I am glad to hear that and therefore I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House because I really cannot judge the effect of the Bill if it is reconstituted.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether after the information from the Minister in charge of the Bill that all the important parts are to be dropped that we should not really adjourn this Debate and then see the Bill when it is reprinted.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has not correctly reported what I said. I did not say all the most important parts. I said all the most objectionable parts.
    Mr. BATHURST: I think it must be apparent to well-wishers as well as to
    1514
    opponents of this Bill that it has become extremely difficult to criticise it with important parts of it cut out.
    Mr. BOOTH: The only way is to deal with the printed Bill.
    Mr. BATHURST: I have bean very much pressed to move the adjournment of the Debate, but I do not propose to make myself responsible for any such course because although I do not like the way in which we have been treated in connection with this Bill I want to see the most important parts of it go through. I will say, however, that until the Government have made it much clearer than they have made at present what the actual cost is which is to fall on local authorities they will find opposition from the local authorities, and a great reluctance to carry on the Bill if it is passed.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are told quite casually in the middle of a speech by my hon. Friend that five or six of the most important Clauses of the Bill are going to be dropped. As I had the honour of sitting on the Committee which considered this question very carefully some years ago I think we might at any rate have been told before we were asked to consider the Bill what the Home Secretary proposed to do. Does he propose to drop any more Clauses?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should propose in Committee upstairs that we should drop Clauses 5 to 10 and all the consequential Clauses of the Bill which would cover immediately Clauses 13, 21, and 43. That is all. As I stated in the few remarks I made I quite recognise at this period of the Session it would be impossible to carry a Bill of this kind, except by general agreement. Therefore, in Committee I shall hope to obtain general agreement as to the whole Bill before it comes back again.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would like to say in regard to that that I for my part very much object to having these Clauses cut out. The Committee went very carefully into this question and many of us thought these Clauses were the most useful of the whole Bill. We also felt and do feel now that if these Clauses are going to be left out there will not be any chance for years to come of bringing them in. I for my part would take the chance of getting a Bill with rather more in it than this Bill is likely to have.
    2.0 A.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: The urgency of getting some agreed Bill through this Session lies in this fact. There are now a number of existing institutions, which are rapidly being closed. I am informed that they will be closed before the end of this year if they do not get some financial provision. It is, therefore, in the interests of existing institutions that I am most anxious to get an agreed Bill. In order to secure the Bill, I am willing to make such concessions as will be necessary.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will give us some undertaking that he really seriously means, at some future time, to go on with this very useful part of the Bill, then I shall feel more satisfied. I do not in the least wish to impede what is being done now, but I do wish to have some chance of getting a very useful part of the Bill before I die.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I will not detain the House longer than a minute, but we ought to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman, on the Second Reading of this Bill, as to the number of the homes which have been erected for the local authorities. We have had no such information. I know that some county councils, which have had these responsibilities placed on them, have not erected these homes at all, because they regard it as a very serious expense and a very serious waste of money. The right hon. Gentleman is legalising the sale of drink, on the one hand, which contributes to the making of these inebriates, whilst, on the other, he is placing a very serious cost on the ratepayers in providing homes for these people after he has permitted them to become inebriates. What we should do is to try to prevent these poor men and women becoming inebriates at all. Anyone acquainted with the administration of our asylums knows how a very large number of these men and women find their way there, and so long as the heads of the Home Office Departments will not deal thoroughly with this matter of licensing the sale of drink, so long I shall regard this expenditure on these homes as a waste of public money.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to add, at the end of the Question, the words "upon this day three months."
    The right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill in 1912, and in December, 1913, he caused a letter to be written to the
    1516
    London County Council, in which he said he wished to assure the council that he would spare no effort to secure the passage of an Amending Bill next Session. With this object in view, he intended to introduce it into the House of Commons as soon as possible after Parliament met. The right hon. Gentleman introduced it in March this Session, and now, in the month of August, he informs us that he is going to drop the most important part of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the part which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to drop is not that part to which I object; the part to which I object is that which remains. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I do not often trouble the House; it is not my fault that this Bill is taken after two o'clock in the morning, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot take the Second Reading at an earlier hour on another day? If he will do that he will find the passage of the Bill through Committee will be much easier than if he forces on the Second Reading now.
    As, however, I understand the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of adjourning the Debate, I have to move the Motion which stands in my name, namely, that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. This is a Bill which is supposed to be non-contentious, and to be approved in all parts of the House. I have always found that when a Bill has the approval of all sections of the House, it has been read by very few hon. Members, and, consequently, its provisions ought to be examined very carefully. We have been told by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office that this is really only a consolidating Bill, and that it makes very few, very small, and very unimportant changes in the existing law. I wish to point out to the House that this is not the case. This Bill proposes some very important, sweeping, and far-reaching changes, and contains some principles which are entirely new. Also, like all Bills which are introduced by the Home Secretary, it contains the principle of compulsion. Part I. of the Bill contains provisions relating to inebriates who are not guilty of any offence; Part II. deals with inebriates who are guilty of offences. Under the present law, as the House is aware, an inebriate who has committed no offence cannot be sent to any home or reformatory unless he himself applies to be admitted to such home or reformatory. He can only go there on his own application.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is what I propose that the present Bill should do. I did not propose anything else.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman made that interruption, as I shall have to show that he really proposes to do something quite different. It is a very interesting statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I am afraid I shall have to deal with it at some length. The Under-Secretary told us that this application would be a voluntary application. I am afraid I have got to go back on what I said before. When the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I was saying that under the present law a person could not be admitted to a reformatory unless he applied for admission. Now the Under-Secretary tells us that such an application is not as frequently made as one would desire. I quite understand that. He said that people do not apply to be admitted to these homes, and that the real purpose of this Bill is to suggest two mild alternatives.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Oh, lord!
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I hope that neither of those two alternatives will ever apply to the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me. I will inform him what those two alternatives really are. Now under the Bill the inebriate may enter into a written undertaking to abstain from intoxicants for an indefinite period not being less than one year, and if he fails to comply with the terms of this, that is to say if he consumes any intoxicant during the year he can be committed to a reformatory for two years. This seems to me to be one of the most absurd, and I think one of the most hypocritical proposals ever made.
    Why does not the right hon. Gentleman say honestly and straightforwardly that any inebriate, any habitual drunkard, whether he has committed any offence or not can be, and shall be, committed to a home or reformatory for a period of two years; because he must know perfectly well that a promise given by an habitual drunkard to abstain from intoxicants for a year is absolutely worthless, and that before long that unfortunate man is sure to break his promise, and if he does break his promise he will become under this Bill liable to be sent for two years to a reformatory or homo for inebriates. I do not want to detain the House but this is an extremely important subject, and I am sure that any hon. Gentleman who wishes
    1518
    to go to bed can leave the House. I should like to point out to the House what is really going to happen. The unfortunate man or woman takes this so-called voluntary pledge, but as a matter of fact he has no desire to make such a declaration. It will probably be made under some form of strong influence or compulsion from other people, and in any case that unfortunate man, that drunkard, will not realise at the time he is giving that pledge what is really the consequence of his action. He will not realise that if he has any intoxicant during that year he is liable to what amounts to two years' imprisonment.
    Let me put out to the House, and this is really of great importance, what an intoxicant really means as defined in the Bill. An intoxicant, as defined in the Bill, means not only intoxicating liquor, but any sedative, narcotic, or stimulant drug, or preparation. Therefore, if any person sees this unfortunate inebriate taking a glass of beer or a dose of aspirin, or, I suppose, even a seidlitz powder he will have him entirely in his power. He can report him, and as he has broken his pledge he will be able to be sent to what practically amounts to prison for a couple of years. This is the first of the two mild alternatives which the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Office (Mr. Ellis Griffith) mentioned. These two alternatives are the voluntary part of the Act, and I think the House will agree that this is an abuse of the word "voluntary."
    Now we come to the second alternative, and this is still retained in the Bill. It is not the part dropped by the right hon. Gentleman. It is still part of the Bill. The second part of the alternative is that this inebriate may submit to guardianship, and that guardian may prescribe for the inebriate a place of residence, either in the house of the inebriate or elsewhere. He may deprive him of intoxicants and prevent him from obtaining them, and he may notify people dealing in intoxicants—
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. I find myself absolutely unable to hear the hon. Gentleman's arguments owing to the conversation carried on on these benches. I think it would be advisable if hon. Members would exercise the usual courtesy extended to hon. Members who make speeches at this time of night.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I was saying this guardian can deprive the inebriate of intoxicants, and can warn persons dealing

    1519
    in intoxicants and other persons from supplying them to the inebriate. Yet, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we have not been told by the right hon. Gentleman who is going to appoint this guardian. Is he to be paid? We have not been told what all the powers of this guardian are. I should like to point out to the House that under the first of these two alternatives, these mild alternatives, suggested by the hon. Gentleman, the inebriate is absolutely bound to get two years in a reformatory, and that under the second alternative, if the guardian so chooses, he can be sent to an inebriates' home for two years, if the guardian considers his powers over the inebriate are insufficient.
    I wish to refer to one other matter, and that is the question of finance. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the local authorities are asking for this Bill. I believe only certain local authorities are asking for it, that is, those who have adopted the Act and are making provision under the Act, I think, of 1878. The other authorities are not asking for it, and you are placing a new financial burden on local authorities all over the country. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office told us that the Treasury was going to bear half the cost. He did not tell us whether half the cost was only for maintenance—I should like to have his attention—whether it means the capital cost, or only the maintenance cost, or whether it means both. That is a matter about which the local auhorities ought to know.
    We also want to know who is going to provide these institutions. It is perfectly clear that there are not sufficient institutions in the country at the present time for all the men and women who are going to be committed by this Bill to them. Last year we passed a Mental Deficiency Act under which local authorities had to provide institutions. This year we have passed a Defective Children's Act under which the local authorities also have to provide institutions, and local authorities really will not know where these new institutions are going to end. The London County Council has already provided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go home!"]—I can assure the House that I have every intention of finishing my arguments. I should like to have the attention of the Home Secretary for a moment because he assured me this afternoon, as he assured the House to-night, that he wishes to get the Bill and wants to do his best to get over
    1520
    any opposition and to drop those Clauses which are opposed. Therefore, I think those speakers who address the House tonight have the right at least to the Home Secretary listening to their arguments.
    I was saying that the London County Council has provided one institute—the home at Farmfield. This home was started in 1900, and I should like to point out to the House that in this home about 110 women are treated every year. The cost of this home is £6,000 a year—that is to say, £60 a year per head—and the county council came to the conclusion that the percentage of inebriates who benefit by reformatory treatment is very low, and "in our opinion the results obtained would not justify the expenditure upon the work." That is the report of the county council, and it shows that the work which is done in these reformatories is really of no great value in the opinion of the greatest local authority in the country. But the London County Council demand that either the State should bear the whole cost of these patients, or that they should adopt the Report of the Departmental Committee, which said that the provision of certified reformatories should be entirely the duty of the State. I hope when this Bill is in Committee the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Amendments which are going to be brought forward. I am extremely sorry that he has forced the Second Reading of this Bill through at this time of the night, and if I have the support of the House I shall certainly ask the House to divide. I move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I want to say first of all that I think all of us who are opposing this Bill ought to be deeply grateful to the Home Secretary for the way he has met us in this matter, and any remarks I make, I trust, will be short and to the point. The fact is I hate this Bill. It is only one of a trio of Bills—the others being the Mental Deficiency Bill and the Criminal Justice Administration Bill, all being directed to take in the unfits and misfits—those who do not fit into our civilisation—and put them into institutions in order to turn out more useful citizens to the possessing classes. I have been wondering whether civilisation is fit for men at all when it turns out results like these. But just look at this Bill, beginning with the definition of what an inebriate is. In regard to

    1521
    mentally defective people discussion turned to a great extent, in the year in which the Bill was introduced, on the definition of what a mentally defective person was, and in the second year they materially modified that definition.
    Then look at the definition of an inebriate. The expression "inebriate" according to "Section 51 of the Bill means—I skip over the extreme form of inebriates and come down to the most moderate form to show what risks people will run—a person who habitually takes or uses any intoxicants, and while under the influence of such intoxicants or in consequence of the effects thereof is at times incapable of managing himself or his affairs. It also means a person who uses any intoxicants and is a cause of serious harm or suffering to members of his family. It does not even say whether it is mental or physical suffering. Observe what a very wide discretion this is. People are apt to believe that intoxicants mean only whisky or things of that sort. It means also morphine or aspirin. The expression "intoxicant" includes any intoxicating liquor, and any sedative, narcotic, or stimulant drug or preparation. It includes Mother Siegel's Soothing Syrup, and any person who is incapable of managing himself or his affairs is liable to be described as an inebriate. If you are an inebriate under this Bill you run a poor risk of escaping one of these institutions which the State provides for the free citizens of this country.
    If you are an inebriate you may first of all voluntarily offer to go to an institution—a retreat—for a year, and you may also put yourself under the guardianship of somebody for a year, and then, should you desire to run away or have a drink, you are liable to be punished by being sent for two years compulsorily to one of these institutions. In the first place, if people voluntarily offer themselves the risks they run should be minimised, and they should not run the danger of being sent compulsorily to one of these institutions. The second danger, whch is based entirely on the Mental Deficiency Act, has fortunately been eliminated by the Home Secretary, and it is not now possible to send undesirable relatives to one of these institutions. That has been cut out in deference to the pressure of some people who still seem to have some lingering idea that the liberty of the subject is what Englishmen stand for.
    1522
    The second part, which I hope will be cut out in Committee, is that persons who can be described as inebriates under this wide definition, and who go before a Court of Justice, are in a very perilous state indeed. If they go before a Court of Justice in connection with any crime connected with drink and admit they are inebriates—and these poor beggars who are brought before benches of Magistrates can be made to admit anything—then they can be sent to one of these inebriate homes for six months. If, however, he is charged before the Bench with any crime for which he is liable to imprisonment, then, without any admission from the prisoner whatever, he can be sent to one of these institutions for six months for the first offence. If, however, you are charged with leaving one of these institutions, or if you do not conform to the regulations laid down in these institutions, if you take any drink or do anything of that sort, then you are liable to be kept up to three years in one of these institutions.
    When you consider that these people are brought up for offences for which in some cases a fine of 5s., or in other cases imprisonment for seven days, would be considered by magistrates as ample punishment, and that the alternative to that sentence is incarceration in one of these institutions for periods which may run up to three years, and subsequently to a period of supervision for a whole year, during which you must not take drink or else you go back to a further-term of imprisonment in these institutions—I say that when you see the enormous difference between a fine of 5s. or seven days and this period of years of confinement in these institutions, I think the House will agree with me that it is extremely dangerous to give to a bench of magistrates these very wide powers over people who may be very moderate drinkers at the present time. I am told that a man has to be convicted three or four times in a year previously before he becomes describable as an inebriate, so that a man has to be a bad case indeed before he is sent to one of these homes. This seems to me to be a very dangerous widening, to take no account whatever of previous convictions and simply to say that a man who is in the habit of taking drink or taking drugs, and while under the influence of drink or drugs is incapable of managing his own affairs—that anybody of that sort is henceforth to be described

    1523
    as an inebriate and liable to the pains and penalties which have up to now been reserved for the worse cases.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: They are not the worst cases.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I know that very often they are not the worst cases. The police do not get at the worst cases. Very often the worst people are the people who avoid being caught. Certainly in the case of drugs the worst drug takers are not caught by the police at all. You are giving a wide definition to a class of people who run great risks if found guilty of very minor offences. This affects men and women alike, and I think we should hesitate two or three times before passing the Second Reading of a Bill which gives dangerously wide powers to the bench of magistrates. I feel that we should be wiser not to divide the House against the Bill because the Home Secretary has promised to meet us. The definition is bad—a very dangerous definition. I believe the Home Secretary will knock this Clause out in Committee, and therefor I am content with registering my protest.
    Mr. BOOTH: I want to point out that this is a Bill of fifty-five Clauses and two Schedules, and it is proposed to give it a Second Reading after forty minutes discussion. I do not understand why friends of mine who profess to be keenly interested in this question should say that I ought not to rise. I am quite prepared to do what some hon. Members dare not do—go down to the market place in my own town and say what I think about this Bill, as I did in the case of a previous Bill, which I got a unanimous instruction to fight. In my opinion all legislation like this is mischievous. I solemnly hold the view that it will increase drinking and inebriety. The only possible way you can deal with a great problem like this is by getting hold of the young people. Once you get into the minds of people that directly they become inebriates the State will look after them, then we do not do our duty to our neighbour. I submit that this is Pagan legislation. It is entirely anti-Christian. It is as opposed as it can be to the Sermon on the Mount. Hon. Friends of mine should remember that their great spiritual Leader did not go about Judæa with his pockets full of Bills.
    I am always prepared to hear opinions that are opposed to my own, and
    1524
    I do hear them more frequently than any other Member, but the assumption that is made that because I oppose a Bill with a good object I am in some way supporting the forces of evil—I have met that so often that I am bound to protest. When I protested against the Criminal Law Amendment Bill some people represented that I was interested in brothels. Some people will now say, I suppose, that because I oppose this Bill I am in some way interested in the trade. I submit that if you want to promote sobriety in the community what you want is constructive action and not compulsory restriction. Offer people something more attractive than drinking and then you may recover them. But to deal with the failures of life, with those who are almost irreclaimable, is a great waste of public money. Take the cost of the Inebriates' Homes. In Lancashire they cost £595 per day. That is the capital cost. In Yorkshire they cost £542 per day. It is a very serious thing to put work like this on the local authorities. It is expensive because it is not successful, and it is expensive because you are beginning at the wrong end. If individuals in the community would do their duty to those who for the first time are giving way to temptation it would be a much cheaper and more sensible way. The cost weekly, as far as I understand, and I believe it is authentic, is 18s. 9d. per head weekly. It is in a document in the possession of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. McKENNA: It is a public document.
    Mr. BOOTH: It is 18s. 9d. per week. A great many here have served on local authorities, and we know what it costs under differing conditions. The prices show at once the kind of people who come. It is a very expensive matter. You may think you may get value for the money expended. It is acknowledged almost all the world over that this work is an entire failure. My view is that unless there is something in the person you can appeal to, the treatment is bound to fail. You do not need these compulsory powers. I think the Government exceedingly foolish at this late stage in the Session to bring forward any Bill, however good its object, of this kind and to ask for a Second Reading. If duty is done to it in Committee it means Members attending at 11 or 11.30 in the morning, then we have to be here all day, and now we are asked to sit here all night as an extra. There is nobody more willing than I am to

    1525
    make sacrifices for the Government, but one of the reasons why I object to this is that the Government is courting disaster. The last snap vote that took place was on the Mental Deficiency Bill upstairs, and the following morning fourteen supporters of the Government arrived here in the afternoon.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): I fail to see the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. Member.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think what I was saying is certainly a reason for not reading the Bill a second time. In Clause 3, Sub-section 3 you give a warning against supplying intoxicants to any inebriate. That is a revival of the "black list." Now the "black list" is a failure. That is agreed. Is there any Member in this House or any Member of the Government whose duty it is to enforce the law, who can get up and say it is being observed? Yet here it is being revived again and it will be a dead failure. I should have thought after the miserable failure we have had it would not have appeared again. Take Clause 4. There, there is a point that when a man is retained—and you are going to revive it—the magistrate shall not be required to satisfy himself that the man is an inebriate. I cannot really understand such legislation brought forward in the name of Liberalism. I thank the Home Secretary for the concessions in respect of the Clauses to be dropped, but I would point out that the Clauses left in are Clauses dealing with penalties. When you come to Part II. the punishments are more severe. There is really not much interest taken in this Bill. Last night 150 copies of the Milk and Dairies Bill were applied for. To-night hon. Members have not troubled themselves about this Bill at all.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is dealing with Committee points.
    Mr. BOOTH: I submit that when I am moving the rejection of a Bill I can speak on any point.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. It is not for the hon. Member to criticise the merits of my decisions.
    Mr. BOOTH: I submit to your ruling, but it is exactly the opposite to the ruling I have had from Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] If you say I cannot criticise any of the Clauses or the Schedules I will, of course, give way.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been sufficiently long in this House to know that that is not a proper observation to make.
    Mr. BOOTH: I did not mean it offensively, Sir, and I withdraw it. I will only say if that is the way in which the Bill is to be discussed, and that is your ruling, which I have no doubt is perfectly right, then I do not think it will facilitate this Bill passing into law this Session.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: I think the Home Secretary is conferring a great benefit on many unfortunate folks. These people will thus be placed in a position in which they may, from being addicted to drink, become sober people. There is one difficulty to which I would call attention. These people must commit some crime before they can be sent to jail, and they may perhaps be kept waiting there some time for the Quarter Sessions to open. That being so, I think a way should be found of giving magistrates, before whom such people would be brought, power to commit them to an Inebriates Home at once. I know many cases in Ireland in which people in these homes have been cured, and I know that the homes have conferred benefits on both men and women. Therefore, I heartily support this Bill.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I rise to appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Goldsmith) not to press this Motion for the rejection of the Bill. I quite sympathise with the difficulty he has suffered, in having to discuss it at this time of night, and I should like to enter my protest against the action of the Home Secretary who, without saying a word to those who had considered this question, and who had supported this Bill, has gone behind their backs, and dropped a portion of it. When an hon. Gentleman like the Member for Newcastle-under Lyme, who has not studied the subject at all—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman has exhausted his rights.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am speaking on the Motion for the rejection, Sir. I do protest very much that, after a Committee has sat for months considering this question, and has received very little help from the Government that this Bill should be brought in at an impossible moment for its being passed. Also that, without approaching any of the people really interested in it, the Home Secretary should go behind their backs and should make an arrangement to drop part of the Bill in

    1527
    the hope of getting what would only be a miserable measure, and which could not possibly be properly debated or considered either here or upstairs. I do think we have got a great grievance, but I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Motion for the rejection.

    Division No. 206.]

    AYES.

    [2.53 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    O'Shee, James John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Boland, John Pius

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Reddy, Michael

    Cawley, Harold T, (Lancs., Heywood)

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    King, Joseph

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Clough, William

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

    Rowlands, James

    Cullinan, John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Doris, William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sheehy, David

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shortt, Edward

    Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Millar, James Duncan

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Molloy, Michael

    Waring, Walter

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Webb, Henry

    France, Geraid Ashburner

    Muldoon, John

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Gulland, John William

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gwynn, Stehen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Hackett, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    William Jones and Captain Guest.

    Higham, John Sharp

    NOES.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Goldsmith and Mr. Booth.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg to move, "That the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member desire to withdraw his Motion?
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: No.
    Question proposed, That the word "now" stand part of the Question.
    The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 10.
    Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
    The House divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 94.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Doris, William

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Reddy, Michael

    Duffy, William J.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robinson, Sidney

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Macveagh, Jeremiah

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Sheehy, David

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Shortt, Edward

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Molloy, Michael

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

    Gulland, John William

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Hackett, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Waring, Walter

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Webb, H.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shee, James John

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Jones, Leil (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pratt, J. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    William Jones and Captain Guest.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Bill committed to a Standing Committee.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

    NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1912–13.
    Committee to consider the Surpluses and Deficits upon Navy and Army Grants for 1912–13, and the application of Surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided
    1530
    for in the Grants for that year, this day.—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented on the 12th and 10th February last, respectively, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes after Three o'clock, a.m., Thursday, 30th July.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SUPERVISING ASSISTANT CLERKSHIPS.
  SUPERVISING ASSISTANT CLERKSHIPS.
  De-alcoholising Beer.
  De-alcoholising Beer.
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Bankers' Banknotes (Monthly Average).
  Bankers' Banknotes (Monthly Average).
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  IMPORTATION OR ARMS.
  IMPORTATION OR ARMS.
  Delvin Board of Guardians and District Council.
  Delvin Board of Guardians and District Council.
  Westmeath (Local Law Costs).
  Westmeath (Local Law Costs).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  FLEET MOBILISATION.
  FLEET MOBILISATION.
  TURKISH ARSENALS COMPANY.
  TURKISH ARSENALS COMPANY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ARMY CANTEENS (WAR OFFICE COMMITTEE).
  ARMY CANTEENS (WAR OFFICE COMMITTEE).
  BULFORD CAMP (MARRIED SOLDIERS' COTTAGES).
  BULFORD CAMP (MARRIED SOLDIERS' COTTAGES).
  Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents (United Kingdom).
  Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents (United Kingdom).
  Juvenile Employment (Advisory Committees, London).
  Juvenile Employment (Advisory Committees, London).
  Labour Exchanges (Nurses).
  Labour Exchanges (Nurses).
  Marconi Company (Subsidiary-Undertakings).
  Marconi Company (Subsidiary-Undertakings).
  Moratorium.
  Moratorium.
  University Education Committee.
  University Education Committee.
EARL KITCHENER.
Field Marshal Horatio Herbert, Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum and of the Vaal, in the Colony of the Transvaal, and of Aspall, in the county of Suffolk, Baron Kitchener of Khartoum and of Aspall, in the county of Suffolk, K.P., G.C.B., O.M., G.C.S.I., G.C.M.G., G.C.I.E., His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt and Minister Plenipotentiary in His Majesty's Diplomatic Service, haying been created Baron Denton of Denton, in the county of Kent, Viscount Broome of Broome, in the said county of Kent, and Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome aforesaid—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
(Unopposed Orders.)
Reported, without amendment.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
(Deal Order.)
Report front the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Deal Order; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
OXFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 25th day of May last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 25th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2ª; agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly and committed for To-morrow.
RIDDINGS DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
NORTHWICH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION) (No. 3) BILL.
Brought front the Commons.
HESKETH ESTATE (FLOOD DEFENCES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LEYLAND GAS BILL.
  TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Returned front the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Report front the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Welby be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Onslow; read; and agreed to.

INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to amend the law relating to indictments in criminal cases and matters incidental thereto. The Bill provides for a good deal being done by rules, and in order that the matter may be made clear I purpose having the rules printed and laid on the Table of the House so that they may be considered along with the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 201).

PACK-BERESFORD'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION) (No. 3) BILL.
Read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 202.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
  Moved, That the order made on the 25th day of May last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 25th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2ª; agreed to: Bills read 2ª accordingly.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.
Committed for To-morrow.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the object of this Bill is one in which the business world concurs. It is to make certain amendments in the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, which are in themselves very desirable, and which have this further advantage, that they bring our law into accord with the Uniform Regulation on Bills of Exchange which has now been assented to by more than thirty foreign countries. These proposals were brought forward by our own delegates at the last Hague Conference in 1912. The amendments have been approved by the
240
Bank of England, the Institute of Bankers, the Incorporated Law Society, and the various Chambers of Commerce and other expert bodies to whom they were submitted for consideration. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
*LORD FABER: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Lord Chancellor said, and I agree that this Bill is entirely non-contentious and has been approved by high financial authorities in the City. But there are one or two provisions in the Bill to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and which I hope the Lord Chancellor will be so good as to consider. The object of this Bill is to bring our law on the subject of bills of exchange into line with that of foreign countries. At present there are different regulations applying to bills of exchange in Europe, in America, and in England. This Bill will remedy some of those differences, but not all.
Clause 2 provides that where a bill falls due on a non-business day it shall be deemed to be due and shall be payable on the next succeeding business day. That is a very necessary provision, because at present we are in this curious position. If a bill falls due on a Sunday, on a Good Friday, or on Christmas Day, it is payable on the day before; but if a bill falls due on a Bank Holiday it is payable on the day after, and that leads to confusion especially in foreign countries when sending bills here for payment. Therefore it is proposed in this clause to make the law uniform, so that all these bills in such cases shall be payable the day after. Clause 3 provides that if a man writes his name on the face of a bill he accepts that bill. At present it is not quite certain what happens if he writes his name on the back of the bill. It might be only an endorsement. It is decided by this clause that if he writes his name on the face of a bill he accepts that bill.
Clause 6 provides that, notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, a bill of exchange which is presented for acceptance or accepted or payable outside the United Kingdom shall not be invalid by reason only that it is not stamped in accordance

241
with the law for the time being in force relating to stamp duties. I should like to see that law applied to bills that are payable in this country, my contention being that a bill should not be invalid by reason only of its not being stamped so long as the penalty for non-stamping is made sufficiently heavy. I know I shall be told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might lose money in this way, and that he fears that people would not stamp bills of exchange at all; but I think that if the penalty were made sufficiently high that need not interfere with my proposal. I know that it may be said that this clause is a money clause and that we have no I jurisdiction in this House over it. That I might, of course, interfere with my desire to get the clause altered so as to apply it to bills in this country as well as to those payable abroad, but I cannot say whether that is so. At present, as regards bills of exchange payable in this country, we always take three days of grace after the bill is due. That is not done in any Continental country and is done in only a very few of the States of America, and I should like to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that the three days grace now given in this country should be done away with.
When the Committee stage arrives I should like to move two Amendments. They are not important and are not contrary to the Hague Conference, but they would be very valuable indeed to bankers. The first of those Amendments refers to forged endorsements on so-called cheques, which so-called cheques have not the protection of ordinary cheques as regards endorsement. At present when a cheque is produced to a banker it is the banker's duty to know the signature of the drawer, and if he does not know the signature and passes a forgery the banker has to pay; but as regards the endorsement on the cheque, as long as it is purported to be signed by the payee the banker has nothing to do with it. How can he know, when a cheque is payable, say, to John Brown or Tom Jones, that the John Brown or Tom Jones who has endorsed the cheque on the back is the genuine John Brown or Tom Jones? There is an Act which says that the banker is not liable for the endorsement on that cheque. But in the last few years there has grown up a new kind of document, issued chiefly by local government boards and so on,
242
which has attached to the cheque a receipt, and the receipt has to be signed and no endorsement is required. That does not come under the cheque law. Consequently a banker is liable for the receipt on these forms being a genuine receipt, which seems to me to be unfair, because it is quite impossible for the banker to know whether or not the receipt is genuine. Therefore we want by one Amendment which I shall move in Committee to include these documents within the law applying to cheques. The other Amendment which I shall move is a short one which would enable people to cross documents of this kind and to get thereby the protection of a crossing which at present they cannot enjoy. Those are all the remarks I have to make on this Bill. I think it is a very good Bill and should certainly go through. In days to come we shall hope to get even nearer to foreign nations than we are now, but at present this is a good beginning, and all the City authorities will be glad to see this Bill passed into law.
On Question, Bill read 2—, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill of a very different character from the last, but a Bill which has this resemblance in its circumstances, that up to this stage it has been received with great unanimity. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons and has passed all its stages in that House, and while there it was received by both Parties with approval. That is not to be wondered at, because in no sense is this Bill founded on any Party tradition. The origin of its principle—which is the mitigation, in the case of young persons, of first offenders, of the evil effects of imprisonment without discretion being exercised—we owe to a remarkable Home Secretary who accomplished much in his time. I refer to Lord Cross. In 1879 Lord Cross passed through Parliament the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which dealt with these punishments and

243
may be said to have initiated the policy of subsequent legislation. Then in 1887 was passed the First Offenders Act, which went still further in the direction of mitigating the effects of imprisonment in the case of first offenders. Then came, in 1891, the Youthful Offenders Act, which carried that policy still further.
In 1907 the Probation of Offenders Act was passed, which introduced a new principle, not altogether to avoid punishment, but instead of imprisonment putting the youthful offender on probation under a supervising officer, who observed him and reported on him, and, if he conducted himself well, assisted him as far as could be back to employment in civil life. Then came further provisions in the Children Act of 1908, and in the same year the. Prevention of Crime Act was passed which contained some very important provisions relating to what are called Borstal institutions—places of imprisonment directed not so much to punishment as to reformation; places where the person confined is, no doubt, in custody, but is under admirable training physically and mentally. He is there being fitted in every way in which it is possible for a person in those unfortunate circumstances to be fitted to go back into civil life, and when he does go back into civil life he is assisted to employment, particularly to employment at sea, which opens peculiar facilities for dealing with this class of case. It is difficult to realise how great a change the Borstal system introduced, and in this Bill power is taken to extend those provisions still further.
This Bill does not refer exclusively to Borstal institutions; in fact, the Borstal part of the Bill is by no means the main part. The principle of the Bill, applied in various forms, is the mitigation of the evil effects of imprisonment on juvenile or first offenders. That principle assumes in the Bill various forms. The Bill deals with fines, with probation, with supervision, and with those Borstal institutions to which I have referred, and in addition to that it aims at simplifying the general law and procedure. For instance, there is a very harsh method in our procedure by which, when but, a small fine is imposed, there is a large sum payable in costs. In future the sum ordered to be paid will include the costs, so that the offender who has been sentenced to pay a fine will know what he has to pay.
244
Bearing that in mind I come to the first of the main provisions of the Bill, which is to deal with fines. It is an extraordinary fact that at the present time more than hair the prisoners in our local prisons are there for non-payment of lines, and not because they have been sentenced directly to imprisonment. The number of these prisoners is something like 80,000. The fines are often of small amount. Some people, of course, refuse to pay the fine and prefer to undergo the imprisonment; but experience has taught that in the majority of cases these persons would have been glad to pay the fines if they could have obtained a little time. The principle of the Bill is this. At present you can get time in which to pay, but under the Bill it is to be the rule to give time to pay. When a fine is inflicted the person on whom it is imposed is to have time in which to pay it, and this provision—in Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill—taken in conjunction with the others, will have, it is believed by those who are advising the Government in these matters, and they are persons of great experience, substantial influence in relieving the prisons of a lot of people who now find their way there. Imprisonment leaves a certain stigma, and it is not right that there should be imprisonment unless it is necessary to compel obedience to the law. Therefore what is proposed here is that as a general rule time shall be given for the payment of fines.
There are other provisions. When there are short sentences there is power given, particularly applicable in the case of juvenile offenders, to sentence them, not to go to prison, hut to be detained in the precincts of the Court, where they will be under the control of the Police while not actually in prison. That, of course, is something which can apply only in the case of very short sentences. Then I come to what I call probation. Large powers are given in the Bill, particularly in the case of juveniles, to let them out on probation or to sentence them merely to be under probation. When a young prisoner is put under a probation officer the officer looks after him; the lad is under conditions which involve his undertaking to be of good conduct—it may be an undertaking to abstain from alcohol—and the duty of the probation officer is to look after him in this period. I need not tell your Lordships that these provisions apply only to youthful

245
and early offenders. We hope that this system, which is already in operation to a small extent, may become in operation to a considerably larger extent, and that we fluty thereby avoid such a state of things as our prisons getting filled with young persons. Then arises the question, Where are the probation officers to come from? The Bill makes provision as to that. It enables societies to be set up, the business of which will be to train and provide these probation officers, and the Treasury will give money to assist those societies in all proper cases.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What kind of societies?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will tell the noble Marquess in a moment. They will be carefully approved societies for the purpose. In the case of the worst class of offenders the power of sending them to Borstal institutions instead of to prison is enlarged. Instead of sentencing them to a short term of imprisonment, in cases where the Court thinks it is the only chance of the reform of a young offender he may be sent to a Borstal institution where he will be trained. Those institutions are described in the Prevention of Crimes Act as "places in winch young offenders, whilst detained, may be given such industrial training and other instruction, and may be subjected to such disciplinary and moral influences, as may conduce to their reformation," and I might add to that, their employment in later life. There are four typical Borstal institutions in this country—one at Borstal, another at Feltham, a third for girls at Aylesbury, and a wing of the prison at Canterbury is used in this way. This is the kind of life of a boy in a Borstal institution. He gets up at 5.30 a.m.—it is an early hour, but it is found that the process of reformation is assisted by early rising; at 6.10 there is drill and gymnastics, at 7 o'clock breakfast, at 8 o'clock work begins, and 11.30 work stops, at 12 dinner is partaken of, at 1.30 work begins again, at 5.15 work ends for the day, at 5.30 the boys have supper, at 6.10 they go to chapel, at 6.30 there are evening classes, recreation, and hair-cutting, and at 8 o'clock bed. That is a wholesome mode of life, and in the end a large number of these boys, as I have already said, are assisted to employment, notably service at sea. The Bill takes power to extend that.
246
I will tell your Lordships very shortly what the Bill consists of. It is essentially a Bill of detailed provisions, all directed to the end of which I have spoken, and substituting some thing for the evil effects of ordinary imprisonment in the case of youthful and first offenders. The first two clauses deal with the obligation to allow time for the payment of fines. Then supposing a fine has to be paid by instalments and some instalments are paid, the period of imprisonment in default is reduced proportionately to the amount which is paid, and discretion is largely given to the Court to allow further time. Then there are provisions for the enforcement of the payment of these fines, for we do not intend people to trifle with us. Then there are uniform scales of Court fees. These provisions take up the first six clauses of the Bill. The seventh clause is concerned with probation. And now will answer the question put to me by the noble Marquess. Clause 7 says that—
"If a society is formed or is already in existence having as its object or amongst its objects the care and control of persons under the age of twenty-one whilst on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, or of persons whilst placed out on licence from a reformatory or industrial school is Borstal institution, or under supervision after rite determination of the period of their detention in such a school or institution, or under supervision in pursuance of this Act, or some one or more of such objects the society may apply to the Secretary of State for recognition, and the Secretary of State, if he approves of the constitution of the society and is satisfied as to the means adopted by the society for securing such objects as aforesaid, way grant his recognition to the society."
So that your Lordships will see that these are voluntary societies which have to be approved by the Secretary of State. Then under Subsection (4) of Clause 7 power is given to grant money towards the expenses incurred by the societies. It is to these societies we look to provide the probation officers.
Clause 10 deals with the terms on which a prisoner may be committed to a Borstal institution. That committal may be for a longer time than the period of the sentence which he would otherwise get, because he is being sent to an institution where he is under discipline and where he gets a new chance. Clause 12 deals with the power of the Court to order a very short period of detention in the precincts of the Court instead of in prison. Then there are certain miscellaneous provisions with which I need not deal. Clause 16 enables more

247
easily the transition to be made from the third division to the second division than is the case at the present time. There are other provisions for the benefit of prisoners. They are relieved of the cost of conveyance to prison. There are various provisions as to consecutive sentences and facilitating applications for bail and the granting of it. Then there are provisions as to licences for persons who have been sentenced to penal servitude. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with the other miscellaneous matters in the later clauses up to Clause 36. There is a restriction upon corporal punishment not of very great importance. Then there are provisions as to right of appeal and certain provisions as to indictment, and clauses containing the provisions necessary in the application of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland.
I have told your Lordships the material provisions in this Bill. To deal with it as a whole and as the application of a simple principle is not possible further than I have indicated. The principle of the Bill is to mitigate the punishment of imprisonment. The Bill was sifted carefully in the discussions which took place in the other House. It met, I think, with unanimous approval. It is founded on the experience of Police magistrates, Judges, and officials. It represents another step in that long chain of reforming Acts of which I have spoken, which began with Lord Cross's Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 and which have been continued by successive Governments until in this Bill we have the last proposals resulting from the experience of those who have to administer this unfortunate side of our social system. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I ask to be allowed to take the lead in congratulating the Government upon this Bill. Those congratulations, I believe, will be as general in this House as they were in the House of Commons when the Bill was there introduced. The noble and learned Viscount has justifiably called attention to the approval which this Bill there received, not merely at its inception but throughout the long discussions which resulted in its taking the final form which it now has and in
248
which it comes before your Lordships' House. If you look at the headings of its clauses you see that it covers a vast number of subjects. It is a sort of omnibus Bill, with all sorts of odds and ends of administration that require attention at the present time. But to me, and, I imagine, to most of those who have looked into the matter, far the most important part of the Bill is that which relates to prison reform, using the word "prison" in the widest sense and using it for institutions as unlike as can possibly be to the ordinary idea of a prison, but regulating, reforming, and enlarging the scope of these institutions in a way which experience has shown to be desirable.
I suppose it is true to say that, while England was in advance of most other countries with regard to a great deal of the legislation of a generation or a couple of generations ago, upon the action of the Criminal Law as a whole we did not go very rapidly forward as regards the elasticity of prison work and the kind of experimental prison reforms which were being attempted in some other countries, notably on the other side of the Atlantic, more markedly than among ourselves. Work inside our prisons is peculiarly difficult to reform by the ordinary process of the influence of public opinion, because public opinion is so exceedingly uninformed as to what goes on within the prison walls. A vast number of people who pass the walls of a prison and look up upon it congratulate themselves that probably those who are inside are kept out of mischief for the time being, and they think that no doubt all is going on well inside. It is many years ago that our great prison reformer, Mr. Howard, spoke of prison reform as "the open but unfrequented path." But something has been done.
I believe our legislation will bear favourable comparison with that of any other country so far as what has been done within the last ten years at all events. The Lord Chancellor has called attention to the group of three Acts passed within a year and a half, the Probation of Offenders Act, the Children Act, and the Prevention of Crime Act. All these, speaking largely, had the same purpose. It was to prevent those getting into prison who could get there nothing but harm owing to their tender years, while very many of them were those whose offence

249
had been of a sort which in some other walks of life would not have been regarded very severely at all. All these Acts taken together, and the way in which they have since been developed, have tended to render impossible the sending of anybody to prison under the age of 14, and rendering it very difficult for anybody to be in prison under the age of 16. Nobody, I believe, is imprisoned to-day under 14 years of age, and very few indeed under 16 years of age. Of course, probationary and reformatory institutions may most rightly get their hold upon some of those who are too young to go within the prison walls. It is a curious fact, after all the progress that has been made in a thousand different ways in our ordinary social life in this country—the advance of the standard of comfort, the standard of education, and the rest—that there has not been what, we should all, I imagine, have expected 20 years ago, a proportionate diminution of what we may call ordinary crime. I do not know whether your Lordships are all familiar with the fact, but I think I am right in saying that whilst in 1893 out of every 100,000 persons there were 192 charged on an average with indictable offences, now out of 100,000 persons 184 are so charged. It is an improvement, but it is not a great stride in advance to come from 192 to 184 as the change that 20 years have brought about for the better.
And I believe that, those who are thus disappointed can, when they look into it, find a ground for their disappointment partly in the results of the long period during which we have been accustomed, until lately, to go in for very short prison sentences. If there is one thing upon which prison reformers and students of the subject are now agreed, it is the fatuity and uselessness of very short sentences. I do not know whether your Lordships read a series of articles which appeared some six weeks ago in The Times by a lady of great experience and knowledge, as the articles showed, who brought out in various ways the genuine mischief that had been done by very short sentences and the certainty that, while these may very decidedly be punitive, they are hardly ever reformative, and most of all is that true with regard to women and girls. We are asked, If that is so, what would you do instead? This Bill is the result of many endeavours which have been made to answer that question. We say that what
250
we must do instead is that when we can catch an offender early in the career of crime which might otherwise come, we should be able to turn him or her off that mischievous path on to a more useful life. and all the legislation of 1907 and 1908 tended in the direction of taking care that young persons at all events should have a chance which they never had before.
The Lord Chancellor has referred to the Borstal system. Any one who has looked with care into what has been happening in regard to that system, applied to both boys and girls, will see that where it has been able to be rightly worked the experience is extraordinarily satisfactory considering how short a number of years we have been at work on the subject. But in Borstal institutions as truly as in prisons we have to take care that we do not do harm by the sentences being too short, and one of the advantages of passing this Bill will be, I hope, the institution of a minimum sentence of two years for anyone going under the Borstal system, which is not a penal system but an educative and reforming system, and the period of two years is felt to be the minimums time during which that process is likely to have the full beneficial effect it might to have. I have means of knowing what has happened both to boys and girls under the Borstal system, and I have no hesitation in saving that I believe it to have had the highest possible success in its operations upon a class singularly difficult to know how to mould and guide and help.
If one had to summarise what the Bill as a whole will do in the way of advantage, I should make it almost all turn upon the improvement which it will effect in making probationary and reformative a great lead that is now penal, and extending experiments which have been in their early days proved to be successful to a larger scale for the benefit of the training of those who instead of being started on a criminal career, are often pulled up at the time and started upon something very much better than would have been likely to be theirs had they not had, I would almost say, the gain of going to a Borstal institution or reformatory in the early days of their grown-up life. There are many questions of detail, questions possibly better discussed in Committee, but of great importance. I am particularly grateful for the recognition, none too early, given of the

251
efforts of societies which have hitherto furnished the probationary officers upon whom so much turns. These are not societies existing in the main for the production and training of probation officers. The societies exist for philanthropic purposes, temperance purposes, and the rest, whose Police Court officers have proved themselves so effective in getting hold of even other criminals than those who would specially have fallen under their scope that magistrates have used them again and again; and we have often felt, those of us who are dealing with the matter, that we have been providing from the limited funds of a private society a great deal of what ought to be subsidised from public funds.
Nothing is to me more satisfactory than that Government aid will now be given to those officers who, though being supported by these societies, are really officers for the public service as a whole much more than for the promotion of some particular branch of amelioration or reform in our social system. It is a very great gain that their position should be recognised, and I congratulate and thank the Government for having taken the matter in hand. But I do think it most important that one change should be made. We want a larger number of women. There are women as probation officers in London and in some of the large towns, but there are great areas and many large towns, too, in which there are no women at all, while a great many of those who have to be thus helped are girls and young women essentially needing the guidance of a woman as the probation officer to whom they could be entrusted. Therefore I hope to see, when this Bill becomes an Act and is in operation, great encouragement given to the appointment of women as probation officers, considering those to whose gain their energies and activities would have to be devoted.
Then there is another point to which I am rather anxious that some attention should be given in Committee. I refer to the places of detention which are to be temporarily used in order to avoid sending to prison those who ought not to go there. The provision in our large cities of places of detention for that purpose is comparatively easy, but it is not nearly so easy in country places and towns; and I venture to hope that there will be a wide interpretation given to the clause, and that its terms will be con-
252
sidered with a view to their enlargement if necessary as to what are the right places which can be thus used. We have what are known as Remand Homes in a great many places, but it does not appear from the wording of the Bill that the term "Remand Home" will be regarded as covering the places which are henceforward to be looked upon as appropriate for the detention of prisoners in this way. However, that is a matter of detail. Again we want women there. Girls and young women are no small proportion of those thus temporarily detained, and it is a vital necessity, in my judgment, that the number of women officers looking after these places should be considerably enlarged.
Then there is the point about Children's Courts. We have sonic Children's Courts. A start has been successfully made already in our great cities, but we have not nearly so many as we ought to have. And there are places where the object of the Children's Court is a good deal defeated by the fact that it is held at the ordinary Police Court at the close of the ordinary proceedings and the children are kept in the Police Court throughout the day waiting for the time to come when their Court is opened. The idea of the Children's Court was to keep the children from the contamination of the Police Court, yet under the system I have mentioned they are kept within the very walls of the Police Court for the best part of the day. Of course, this may be an administrative rather than a legislative detail—
LORD BARNARD: May I interrupt the most rev. Primate for one moment? In connection with the Petty Sessional Court over which I have the honour to preside, the Children's Courts are always held at the commencement of the proceedings and never at the end.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am very glad to hear that, and I hope that policy will be adopted in other places as well. There is no doubt that the fact is as I have stated in the particular case I have in mind, but I hope such cases are rare. I think, following the example of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic, that we should extend the development of the Children's Courts in the way of having also special children's magistrates, because it does not

253
follow that every magistrate is equally competent to deal with the strangely difficult and delicate task of looking after the working of a Children's Court. One case has come under my own notice where an otherwise admirable magistrate has become so exceedingly deaf that it has been proved practically impossible to get him to hear what the children have to say. That kind of difficulty is an instance of a very obvious sort of our needing special men to deal with a very special department of work. The noble Viscount (Lord Bryce) who has had unique experience of American life will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I am right in saying that most of the places in the United States—which set us the lead in the matter of Children's Courts, and where these Courts have been so successful—have children's magistrates doing the work in these Courts. Of course, that does not mean that those magistrates are not available for other work, but they are specially qualified for that particular work. These are all details, however. The large principle which this Bill covers is, to my mind, in every sense a wholesome and desirable one. The Bill appears to me, as far as I can judge, to be admirably calculated to effect that which it is intended to do, and I desire to offer it, on behalf of some of us who have been long interested in these matters, a cordial welcome, and to express our gratitude to the Government for the form which the Bill has taken.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I wish to join with the most rev. Primate in praise of the Bill, which I am sure is an excellent one; but there is a little matter about which I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor a question, and that is with regard to the Board of Statutory Visitors, and I look to Ireland. There was a largely-signed memorial to the Home Secretary, signed by leading representative women of all parties and creeds in Ireland, asking him to make a statutory order in the Bill that there should be two women inspectors to every women's convict prison in Ireland. The memorial wound up in this way—
"The appointment of women as prison visitors should cease to be a discretionary power and should be made a statutory one."
I believe there is a woman inspector of women's prisons in this country, but there is not one in Ireland, and that is the
254
reason why I have asked for this provision. It is, of course, no good my moving an Amendment if the Lord Chancellor does not think fit to accept it. That is why I ask the question now, Would he accept such an Amendment?
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the most rev. Primate with regard to the working of Children's Courts. It has been found in the United States, where these Courts originated, that it is quite essential to their good working that they should be held in a different place from that in which the ordinary Criminal Courts are held. It is desirable to prevent the children from feeling that they are in any Sense treated as criminals, and to remove all the associations which attach to ordinary penal procedure from the treatment of their cases. I was much struck in attending the proceedings in these Courts by the fact that the ordinary atmosphere of a Criminal Court was absent and that the whole thing was dealt with on a different basis. In fact, the magistrate seemed to feel that he was not merely a magistrate but, so to speak, an agent for reformation; one might almost say a friend. He was endeavouring to treat the children as those who had lapsed through ignorance or unfortunate conditions, and to deal with them not as if they were mere criminals but as persons who were capable of being reformed by the application of tactful and sympathetic methods. It is very desirable for that purpose that the Children's Court should be held ice a different place; and it is also desirable, as the most rev. Primate said, that the work should be entrusted to persons who have acquired special experience and special tact and sympathy in the way of dealing with these cases.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to join with the most rev. Primate in congratulating the Government on the presentation of this Bill. In its general scope and in most of its provisions I have no doubt that it will receive the general approbation of your Lordships' House. It is almost useless to do so, but I cannot help repeating once more my very respectful protest against the way in which your Lordships' House is treated. This is pre-eminently a Bill which ought to be discussed here. It

255
deals with very detailed and intricate matters of the administration of the Criminal Law. We have amongst us some of the greatest legal luminaries of the country. I notice that they hardly ever contribute to our debates, but they are members of your Lordships' House. There was a time when the Law Lords were not only of the greatest importance in the administration of justice, but they did help us in discussing legal matters in your Lordships' House. Except the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, there is not a single Law Lord present at the present moment, and as far as I know for the last two or three years they have not taken any part in any debate before your Lordships.
But that is not the only opportunity we have. I should think that half of the members of this House are magistrates, most of them active magistrates; yet this Bill is brought before us at a time of the year when it is practically impossible to go into the details of it. I do not desire to oppose the Bill in any way, but I think that there are in this House noble Lords whose contribution to a discussion of this kind would be most valuable, because they not only administer the law but administer the prisons. Many of your Lordships are members of the Prison Committees in your various counties and know what happens—may I say with all respect?—even better than the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack does. Although in a matter of law a magistrate may be contemptible to him, in a matter of prison administration the magistrate knows quite as much as the noble and learned Viscount. Therefore it was of great importance to the country that this Bill should have been brought forward at a proper time. The Bill might thereby have been greatly improved; objections to the Bill might have been removed in the course of the discussion. All that is lost because this Bill has been produced in your Lordships' House at the very end of July. I make that protest. I do not suppose it will have any effect, but still one is bound to say what one thinks on a matter of that kind.
The most rev. Primate told your Lordships that this was the last of a series of Bills tending to get rid of short imprisonments which do so much harm. It is a step in the right direction, and a very
256
important step. But I should like to make one comment upon what the most rev. Primate said. It is this, that the Bill does not really strike at the main part of the evil, for when this Bill passes the short sentences will go on in the great majority of cases just as before. These are the kind of short sentences which in one's practical experience one comes across. You go into a prison as a member of the Visiting Committee, and as your Lordships know, the procedure is to ask every prisoner whether he has any complaint. He sometimes tells you something beyond his complaint; he sometimes protests against his sentence; and in that way one gets to know the kind of sentences which magistrates in the county inflict. You come across a man who perhaps is, I will not say defective, but is not as fully in command of his intelligence as most free men are. He says something which you can hardly understand, and you appeal to the warder to know what he is. "Oh, he is in and out here continually," says the warder; "I do not think he rightly knows all he is doing." That is the kind of case one comes across in every prison in every month of the year. These men are in and out continually. They are tramps, or persons of that kind, without any settled occupation or abode. They commit these petty offences of drunkenness, or vagrancy, or Wandering without visible means of subsistence, and are put into prison for a week or fourteen days. They are perhaps out for a week and then in for a month or out for a month and then in for a week. It does no good. It is no good as a deterrent, and it is very costly to the country. The problem which the Government—I do not mean to say this Government; I am not speaking in any Party sense— of this country has to face is how to deal with that kind of case.
I turn for a moment to consider one or two of the clauses of the Bill. First of all with regard to probation. I am glad to see the provisions which the Government propose in respect of probation. I think, however, they might have gone perhaps a trifle further in some respects. There are certain crimes which, owing to their definition, do not come within the probationary clauses. Your Lordships will observe that they have to be crimes for which I think a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine is the

257
possible punishment. There are a good many offences which come below that standard, and yet might very properly be dealt with under the probationary clauses. I refer in particular to crimes in connection with prostitution and soliciting; and I shall, perhaps, persuade your Lordships in. Committee to introduce Amendments to cover that kind of case.
Now with regard to handing this duty over to societies. I interrupted the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to ask what sort of societies they were. Of course, they are very useful and do admirable work, but I should like to utter a word of warning. Your Lordships know perfectly well that probation officers are not established by this Bill for the first time; the whole probation system is in operation, and we already appoint the local societies' probation officers—the Joint Committee in the county does it, believe. From my own experience that works very well. I do not know whether it works badly in other counties, but as far as I know it works very well in the county with which I am principally connected. I want to know from the Lord Chancellor why this new provision is made. Why is it not left to the authority in the county, the Joint Committee or whatever it is, to appoint the probation officers as it does now? Why should it be handed over to societies, very excellent societies, no doubt, but societies which are not official, and over whose conduct there is no efficient public control? I want to speak with the greatest respect of these societies, because I know that they do good work. But philanthropic societies are dominated by men who have very strong views on certain questions, and views which are not altogether approved in certain instances by what are called men of common sense outside. I think it would be very dangerous if they were allowed to have complete control of the probation system of the country. I do not say that that is necessarily the effect of the Bill, because I observe that the Secretary of State has to approve; and I suppose the Secretary of State will keep his eye upon these societies. Perhaps he will issue regulations governing them. I do not know. But in his interesting speech I do not think the Lord Chancellor went into that. I should have been very glad if he had told us how he proposes that these
258
provisions with regard to the societies will work—whether the magistrates will still have the duty of appointing the probation officers, and whether they will still have the control of them. If that is so, I do not think there is much criticism to be made. But I should hesitate if it is proposed to hand over this very important duty to be administered entirely by societies which, however admirable, are not public societies, and which may be dominated by persons who are not in every respect quite wise.
I turn to another provision. It is proposed in this Bill to change the rules as to the classification of prisoners. I refer to Clause 16 and the following clauses of the Bill. I think, though I speak under correction, that a new principle is introduced in these clauses, because after a magistrate or a Court of Justice has awarded a certain sentence to a prisoner, part of which is, of course, to determine under what classification as a prisoner the man is to be punished, there is authority in the Visiting Committee to alter the classification. At present—I speak again under correction—I think that a Visiting Committee of a prison has no such power; that it has, indeed, no powers at all except to administer the discipline of the prison. The Visiting Committee sees that the prison is properly conducted; it sees that the prisoners have no complaints; it sees that if a prisoner breaks the discipline of the prison he is suitably punished. Those sort of things are the duty of the Visiting Committee; but up to now they have had no control whatever over the sentence passed on the prisoner and under which he is being punished for the moment. It is now proposed for the first time, I dare say very properly, that after a prisoner has been sentenced to be imprisoned in the third division, the Visiting Committee can say he is to be imprisoned in the second division. It is a new principle that a Committee sitting in private is to have that power. I dare say that can be justified, but there is one provision in the clause which I do not think can be justified, and that is that the Visiting Committee are only to act on the motion of the governor. I think the Government should reconsider that provision. I do not think it is at all suitable that the governor of the gaol should be in a position of superiority to the Visiting Committee.

259
That seems to me an improper provision. The governor of the gaol is a very important person and does his work admirably, but that is not the class to which such a charge should be committed. The Visiting Committee consists of men of a far higher standard than he can ever hope to be, and the authority ought not to rest, I venture to think, with the governor of the gaol.
If the House will bear with me, there is one other topic on which I should like to say a word. The most rev. Primate congratulated the Government, and very truly, upon the efforts which they are making to diminish the amount of imprisonment; but there is one direction in which the Government have not acted at all, and that is a very important direction—I refer to the imprisonment of men before their trial. That is a great and most heinous scandal in this country. Men are imprisoned before they are tried. I came across a case the other day. A man was committed for trial on the charge of firing a stack. That is arson, and therefore cannot be tried at Quarter Sessions, but has to be tried at Assizes. Unfortunately for the man, the Assize of the county to which he belonged had just been held, and consequently he had to wait for the next Assize. I think I am correct in saying that the next Assize did not take place for five months. For five months this man was in St. Albans gaol without trial; at the end of that time he was tried and he was acquitted. He got no redress; he got no compensation; nothing was done to give him any return for this very grave injustice. And that may happen and does happen continually. I admit that mine was an extreme case. All I say is that it is a real case which actually occurred. Of course, if the man had been bailed it would have been different; but he was a poor man, I expect a tramp, and therefore he was not bailed. Consequently he remained in prison for live months untried, and at the end of the trial he was acquitted. That is an outrage which ought never to occur. I hope the Government will consider a remedy for dealing with the possibility of that class of case. If I received the least encouragement from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack I would nut down an Amendment to cover a case of that kind. The sort of remedy would be that where the committing magistrate
260
was made aware that the man could not be tried for more than a certain number of months, the magistrate should be directed to commit him for trial, not to the Assize of the county, but to some other neighbouring Assize, or to the Central Criminal Court, in order to hasten forward the trial so that these cases to which I have referred should not occur. I apologise to your Lordships for detaining you, but I think this is an important matter, and I hope the Government will consider it. For the rest, I join in the congratulations which the most rev. Primate has given to the Government, and I hope that the Bill will speedily pass into law.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Duty to provide for education of mentally defectire children.
1.—(1) It shall be the duty of the local education authority for the purposes of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899 (herein called the principal Act) to make suitable provision, either alone or in conjunction with other local education authorities, for the education of children belonging to their area whose age exceeds seven years and who are ascertained to be mentally defective within the meaning of the principal Act, and accordingly after the words "they may" in subsection (1) of section two of the principal Act there shall be inserted the words "and in the case of mentally defective children whose ago exceeds seven years shall":
Provided that the duty of a local education authority under this Act shall not include—

(i) A duty to make provision for boarding and lodging a mentally defective child unless the Board of Education are satisfied, after considering the report of a duly qualified medical practitioner approved by the Board under section one of the principal Act, and after consultation with the local education authority, that suitable provision for the child's education cannot be made in any

261
other way, and unless the grants payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of a mentally defective child so boarded and lodged amount to not less than one-half of the cost of conveying such child to and from any school so provided and of educating, boarding, and lodging and medically attending and treating tint child (including in the case of a school provided by a local education authority expenditure out of income by the authority by way of interest on or repayment of capital raised, or by way of rent or other similar payment, for the purposes of the provision of the school); or

(ii) A duty to establish a certified school for boarding and lodging mentally defective children, unless the Board of Education are satisfied after considering the reports of such medical practitioners, and after such consultation as aforesaid, that there are not less than forty-five such children belonging to the area for whose education suitable provision cannot be made in any other way.

(2) Subsection (6) of section two of the principal Act and the Elementary Education Amendment Act, 1903, are hereby repealed.
(3) In case of doubt as to whether a child is or is not mentally defective within the meaning of the principal Act, the matter shall be determined by the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, on behalf of Lord MONK BRETTON, moved an Amendment to leave out subsection (3). The noble Marquess said: My Lords, my noble friend cannot be in the House for the moment, and I will formally move his Amendment. May I ask what the special reason of this subsection is? It was introduced at late stage in the proceedings in the House of Commons, and I really do not understand the use of it. The appeal to the Board Education as to whether child is a defective seems to me altogether out of place. Under the principal Act, the Act of 1899, the question as to whether or not a child is a defective within the meaning of that Act is determined by a doctor. The Government now say that if there is any doubt that doubt is to be resolved by the Board of Education. The Act of 1899 was a voluntary Act in this respect, and this is a compulsory Act; and it may very well be that it is not quite sufficient to say that one doctor should determine whether a child may be taken away from its parents and put into a boarding school elsewhere. But why should the appeal authority, as it were, be the Board of Education? I venture to say that the proper appeal authority against the doctor ought to be a magistrate of some kind. Your Lordships will remember that in the Mental Deficiency
262
Bill of last year the authority was a judicial authority—namely, the magistrates who have the control of the lunacy administration of the county. If there is to be an appeal of any kind I should have thought that was the proper authority to appeal to in this case. At any rate, I venture to put the question to the noble Earl.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 22 to 24, leave out subsection (3).—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the noble Marquess is quite right in his general interpretation of this subsection, but the circumstances in which it is expected that the Board of Education will be called upon to act are not quite those which have occurred to his mind. Here we are dealing for the first time compulsorily with all defective and epileptic children. The noble Marquess knows that this will be a compulsion upon a large number of local authorities to undertake work which they have not had before. Only a few local authorities, comparatively speaking, have acted under the Act while it n as a voluntary treasure. Now, however, it is going to be compulsory, and it is quite obvious that these local education authorities will not have any technical knowledge of the kind of children, or whether particular children ought to go to this school or not. It was really meant, in cases where there was a conflict of opinion between the parent and the local education authority, that then the Board of Education should be called in to act as arbiter in this connection. I can understand that a local authority of so much experience as the London County Council, for instance, would perhaps feel that this subsection reflected a little upon their powers of judgment. That was not the intention in putting in this subsection. It was really inserted in order to try and get a general ruling, and to provide local authorities all over the country who have had no experience of administration of this kind with some assistance such as that which the Board of Education can give them. I am glad to give an assurance that the Board of Education never intended to overrule the London County Council without consulting that Council in the first place. The noble Marquess will realise

263
that, the wording of the subsection implies that this consultation would take place, because the jurisdiction of the Board of Education only arises in cases of doubt, and doubt can only arise when there is a difference of opinion between the London County Council and the parent. Then, of course, the Board of Education, knowing or being able to judge of the amount of experience possessed by the local education authority, would naturally be inclined to take that as one of the chief features which they would have to consider when they gave their decision upon the subject. It really is important to have this authority. It is more in regard to those areas which have not adopted the Act of 1899, as I said, than in regard to areas which have experience, that the subsection was included in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly am not going to press the noble Earl at the present moment, but I should like to represent to him that the words are very loosely drawn for the purpose he has in view. The phrase is, "In case of doubt." It is not said who is to have doubt. The noble Earl says the parent is to have the doubt; but there is nothing on the face of the subsection to say that. "In case of doubt" in any one's mind is very loose. Then the subsection goes on to say that the meaning of a certain legal phrase is to be determined by the Board of Education. It is not the sort of words one would expect. As to whether a child is defective within the meaning of the Act—that is to say, the legal construction of a particular phrase in another Act of Parliament—that is not for the Board of Education to determine at all; that would be for some legal authority to determine. I suggest to the noble Earl that he ought to alter the phrase if he intends to cover the kind of ground which he indicated on the part of the Department was meant. I hope he will consider with the draftsmen whether he cannot improve the words.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall be very glad to do that; but I think there is this to be said on the other hand. Although, perhaps, in form it looks as if the question to be decided was a legal one, is it not really much more a medical question? It is whether the child is defective within the meaning of the principal Act. It is important in a case
264
of that kind to have the experience of a doctor. Then, of course, the case only arises when the local education authority acting under the advice of the doctor has a different opinion from that of the parent. It is in those circumstances that it is suggested that the matter should be determined by the Board of Education. I shall be glad to go into the question with the Board of Education, but as at present advised, supposing there was an alternative, I should not be inclined to suggest a magistrate. I would rather have a medical authority than one of a legal kind.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I am very anxious that nothing should happen to prevent this Bill passing, and that no Amendment should be pressed at this stage which would in any way endanger the Bill. To a certain extent I agree with the noble Marquess opposite. I think that prima facie this comes very much in the category of blind and deaf and epileptic children who are now dealt with. The principal Act very properly provides that the opinion of a competent doctor should be obtained that the child is one which should be treated in a special school and is not fit to be treated in an ordinary school. There is no doubt that the parent would resent having his child earmarked in this particular way. I do not wish to move any Amendment which might delay the Bill, but I should like the Government to look into the question. If there is a conflict and a decision has to be given, the body to deal with that ought to be a local body. You cannot send a child up to the Board of Education in London as if it were an affidavit or some such document. The matter should be decided on the spot.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, this Amendment is put down on behalf of the London County Council. In that case the subsection is entirely unnecessary, and as the noble Earl is so well satisfied with the way in which London has administered the previous Act I would ask him whether at a later stage he would accept an Amendment excepting London from this subsection. I agree that it is absurd, even in connection with a local authority far away from London, that the matter should be decided by the Board of Education; but I think as far as the London County Council is concerned it is entirely

265
competent to deal with such a matter itself. If the noble Earl will accept an Amendment on those lines it might avoid any conflict which might happen between those two bodies.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think it would be better for me to look into the question generally, as I said just now. So far as there is a point of substance in the complaint which was raised by the noble Marquess, I think it is clearly desirable that it should be looked at as it affects the whole of the country and not as it affects the one district of London.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Earl is well aware that a great deal of this legislation in London is separately treated. As regards London there is a separate Act altogether, and perhaps it would be suitable to follow the general lines of legislation on the subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Enforcement of obligations of parents of mentally defective and epileptic children.
5.—(1) If a local education authority are satisfied, after consultation with the parent of a mentally defective or epileptic child over seven years of age, that the parent is not making suitable provision for the child's education they may require the parent of the child to send the child to a certified class or school suitable for the child, and if he fails without reasonable excuse to do so may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for an order requiring the child to be sent to a certified class or school suitable for the child and willing to receive him, being either such as the parent may select, or if he does not select a suitable class or school, then such class or school as the court thinks expedient, and such an order shall be a sufficient authority for the conveyance of the child to the class or school named in the order:
Provided that no order shall be made requiring the child to be sent to a certified class or school which is not within reach of the child's residence or to a boarding school without the consent in writing of the parent, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that such consent is unreasonably withheld, or that the parent cannot be found, but consent shall not be deemed to be unreasonably withheld if withheld with the bonâ fide intention of benefiting the child:
Provided further that if the court shall refuse to make an order the court, unless for good cause it shall otherwise order, shall award costs to the parent, and the costs so awarded shall, unless some reason to the contrary appears, include such sum as compensation for the expense, trouble, and loss
266
of time incurred in or incidental to his attendance at the court as to the court may seem just and reasonable.
(2) The provisions of this section shall be in substitution for, and not in addition to, the power of a court of summary jurisdiction, on an attendance order not being complied with, to order the child to be sent to an industrial school under section twelve of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, as applied by the principal Act.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the power of a parent to withdraw a child from school on proof to the satisfaction of the local education authority that he will make suitable provision for the child's education in some other way.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after the word "may" in subsection (1) ["and if he fails without reasonable excuse to do so may"], to insert the words "by complaint." The noble Earl said: The object of introducing these words is to make it clear that the Summary Jurisdiction Act applies to Clause 5. It would cause great inconvenience if it did not apply as governing the whole matter of summary procedure.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2l, after ("may") insert ("by complaint").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Certification of children.
6. Section one of the principal Act shall be construed and have effect as if the following words were added at the end of subsection (3) of that section:—
"Such duly qualified medical practitioner shall, if so directed by the local education authority, before giving a certificate under this section, consult the head teacher of the school, if any, which the child has been attending, or such other person as the local education authority may appoint for the purpose, and a copy of any report made by the head teacher or such other person shall be forwarded to the local education authority."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, after the word "authority" where it first appeared in the clause, to insert "or if he is so requested by the parent of the child." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment has to do with the smile part of the principal Act as the subsection on which I ventured to address your Lordships just now. The Government propose to modify the principal Act in One respect—namely, that when they have asked a medical officer to determine whether the child is defective, they retain a power in

267
the hands of the local education authority to direct that the head teacher should be consulted before the decision is finally arrived at. After all, the local education authority are not the only people or the principal people concerned. I know that education reformers think that the only people to be considered are the local education authority and the child, and they do not think that any one else ought to have any say in the matter at all. But as a matter of fact the parent ought to have a say, and your Lordships and the other House of Parliament think so and have put in some little protection for the parent. This Amendment is one more protection for the parent. The head teacher is a safeguard, because the head teacher does know what appearance the child has presented as a subject of teaching in the experience of the teacher himself. Therefore it is very proper that he should be consulted; and I think it would be quite fair that not only should the local education authority have the head teacher's opinion as a safeguard, but that the parent should have the head teacher's opinion also. I suggest, therefore, that in addition to the local education authority the parent may request that the doctor's verdict should be visaed by the head teacher. It is a very simple Amendment, and I think it is obviously just and fair. I hope the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, after ("authority") insert ("or if he is so requested by the parent of the child").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall be glad to accept the noble Marquess's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Short title and commencement.
9.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1914, and shall be construed with the principal Act, and that Act and the Elementary Education (Amendment) Act, 1903, and this Act may be cited together as the Elementary Education (Defective, and Epileptic Children) Acts, 1899 to 1914; and the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, the Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910, and this Art may be cited together as the Education Acts, 1870 to 1914.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and fifteen.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("and the Elementary Education (Amendment) Act, 1903").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When does the noble Earl propose to take the next stage?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I suggest this day week if that is convenient to the noble Marquess.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Wednesday next and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 203.)

COMPULSORY SETTLEMENT IN SKYE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLETOH: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships many minutes with regard to this matter, but I think your Lordships will see that a somewhat important point of principle is raised. The Questions which I ask are three—namely, whether the Secretary for Scotland has been informed of the proposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to settle by compulsion about 150 families from the Islands of Lewis and Harris on the Macleod estate in the Island of Skye without purchase of the land; whether His Majesty's Government think the proposal is a reasonable one in the form in which it has been made; and whether copies of the correspondence on the subject can be laid on the Table of the House.
I may possibly have overstated the number of families at present to be moved, but I believe it is actually between 130 and 140. There is no assurance, of course, that that will be the end of the proposal. I do not for a moment deny that extensions of existing holdings are often required, not only in the interest of the holder, but in the public interest so as to make them what are called economic holdings. I do not for a moment question the necessity of providing new holdings when for some reason or other, through subdivision, or squatting, or whatever it is, that course is desirable. I frankly admit

269
in both cases that public policy requires the change; the interests of the individuals require it; and I do not believe that in the long run to that extent it is to the disadvantage of the State. Nor do I for a moment controvert the idea, which I am sure will be put forward, that the circumstances of the Lews and of Harris at the present time require consideration and possibly the migration of some of the population in excess of the possible living means provided in those islands. But having made all those admissions, I do press strongly the point that when this has to be taken up as a matter of public policy the requirements of public policy Should not be carried out at the expense of any individual or to his injury, but should be paid for by the public authority frankly and fairly and on proper terms. Of course, the position of the individual is an important one. The position of the community into which these large numbers of persons are to be migrated also requires a certain amount of consideration. The expense will be greatly increased in the new locality for roads, for sanitary provisions, for education, for, to a moderate extent, policing, and in many other matters of that kind. Probably to a certain extent the community must take its chance. That is not so much an injury to the individual. But I do put forward the suggestion that, even in the interest of the community into which these people are migrated, this should be taken into account, because obviously if it is done to excess you are going to reproduce in the new district the very conditions you are seeking to remedy in the old one.
I believe that this proposal which I know has been made is one which is absolutely without precedent. The proprietor of the estate in question, Macleod of Macleod, is a man who has not shrunk in the past from assisting, in the public policy of the extension of holding and of making new holdings. I venture to say it is more than fifty years since I first saw the place of which I am speaking. I have seen it at intervals since, and have been on terms of personal friendship with the successive proprietors of the estate. I am therefore speaking of matters of which I have a certain knowledge. The position of the proprietor is that he is perfectly prepared to accept the co-operation of the Board in carrying out schemes of this kind for the benefit of people round his own home.
270
He has, as a matter of fact, in quite recent years provided accommodation for thirty-six new families and for six extensions of holdings upon two small farms of his estate, but, of course, with a preference to those who are in his immediate district.
As I understand the matter, as long ago as last November the Board o Agriculture intimated to Macleod their desire to secure a large part of the farm of Talisker for the formation of sixty-two new holdings, fifty-three of which were to be allotted to migrants from the Islands of Lewis and Harris. And on January 29 of the present year the Board further proposed to settle on other farms seventy-five new holders who were also to consist largely of migrants from the Island of Harris. On January 8 Macleod wrote to say that he sympathised with the general aim of the Board of Agriculture in regard to the formation of smallholdings under suitable conditions, but he intimated to them— and I am sure it was a reasonable intimations—that he would offer his resolute opposition so long as the estates remained in his possession to the migration of this large number of people of another island of whom he had in, knowledge, with whom he had no connection, and who were in no way related to those amongst whom they were to be placed. He went on to say that—
"If the Departmerts of Government concerned deem it expedient, as a matter of national police, to transport a population from the Lews or elsewhere and to settle them in Skye, the process should be by purchase."
I have quoted the text out of the letter, because it seems to me so reasonable that I want to know what is the answer to the position taken up. Macleod said in January that to enable the Board to effect their purpose on a large scale he was willing to sell the farm of Talisker, comprising 15,000 acres, as a whole; and that if more land were wanted he would sell the farm of Drynoch, about 7,000 acres; and Gesto, about 8,000 acres; and a still larger one, Glen Brittle, about 45,000 acres; but that in no case would he be prepared to part with a portion only of any farm. That is a reasonable safeguard, because for smallholdings you must have as good land as you can get, but if you take all the good land out of a farm you deteriorate the rest to such an extent as to make it useless. Macleod went on to say that while he—

271
"would deeply regret that the necessity should have arisen for parting either with the possession or with the control of lands which have been in his family for many hundreds of years, yet if required by the Government for a development which they believe to be in the public interest, he would consent to sell, and would ask only that the price should be fixed by arbitration."
There is no question of anything being given for compulsory taking. That is not asked for by Macleod, and, as a matter of fact, it is forbidden by the Act under which the Board is working. Macleod received a reply from the Board of Agriculture, dated February 11, in which no allusion whatever was made to this firm, frank, and, I consider, fair offer. It said that the case would be dealt with in the terms of the Small Landholders Act. I have looked at that Act. Your Lordships will recollect the general purport of it. The section in question is a very long and complicated one, and it occupies five pages.
LORD EMMOTT: Section 7.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes, Section 7. It is a very long and complicated section, and I venture to say that any one fairly reading it will see that most of its provisions, if not all of them, are clearly intended to be put into operation for the compulsory taking of land bit by bit, here and there, and it is not a fair reading of it to suggest that numbers of population may be migrated from other parts of the country and put down in this way. It is obviously necessary to have a certain power of compulsion for the extension of holdings or for even making new holdings in the same district, but I venture to say it is not reasonable to do this large operation at the expense of one individual, even supposing that it be granted that public policy requires it. I believe—it is only a conjecture on my part—but I believe that up to the present time no similar proposal has been made anywhere else in Scotland, that nobody has been made the object of such a suggestion, and that nobody else's property has been proposed to be taken without purchase for a large experiment in migration.
I venture to make an appeal to the Government that they should consider very carefully the position they are going to occupy in this matter. If expense is incurred, then it may be very much more difficult for the Departments concerned or
272
for the Government themselves to say that it shall not go on. The whole object of my Question is, first, to make sure whether the Board of Agriculture is carrying along with them the Secretary for Scotland, because the section to which I have referred, if it applies to a case of this kind, gives such absolutely supreme power to the Board of Agriculture and to the Land Court that I do not believe, except on any technical point, there is an appeal to a higher tribunal. Every one knows the case mentioned in the House the other night in the South of Scotland which was the subject of appeal to the Court of Session, and in which the Land Court and Board of Agriculture were found to have acted very wrongfully. I want to be sure, first, that the Secretary for Scotland has been made aware of what is proposed; secondly, that the Government as a whole approve of what is being done; and, thirdly, if possible, by means of the publication of the correspondence, that we may appeal to even a larger tribunal than the Government itself.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I am quite sure it was not necessary for the noble Lord to tell the House that he was no enemy to the policy of finding new holdings where possible for men who needed them, or to the policy of enlarging holdings. The commencement of this legislation was, I think, largely due to him, and he was interested in the early steps in regard to it. And the noble Lord also frankly acknowledged that the condition of the Lews was such that some remedy was required. What he says is that if an experiment in migration is to be made it should not be made at the expense of any individual, but that the Government should buy the property instead of applying for a scheme under the Small Landholders Act. He says that no similar plan has been carried out before, and he complains of what is now proposed.
The noble Lord asks three definite Questions, to which I will reply. He asks, in the first place, whether the Secretary for Scotland has been informed of the proposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to settle by compulsion about 150 families from the Islands of Lewis and Harris on the Macleod estate in the Island of Skye without purchase of the land. The answer to that Question is that the Secretary for

273
Scotland has been informed of the proposal, and that the statements made in it are correct with this exception, that the number of migrants to be settled is less than stated. It is now known that in Skye alone there are 270 applicants for new holdings, and 253 applicants for enlargements. What happened in regard to this matter was this. It must be remembered, of course, that a duty is laid upon the Board of Agriculture in regard to this matter, and Section 7 or the Small Landholders Act of 1911 authorises the Board to apply to the Land Court, failing agreement with the landlord, for a compulsory order for the constitution of new holdings and enlargements.
Shortly after the commencement of their operations the Board had received more applications from the Lews and Harris than it would be possible to provide for in the Long Island even if all the land were sub-divided. And in August, 1912, they wrote to Macleod of Macleod asking if he would be willing to negotiate and co-operate with the Board in a scheme for the migration of fishermen and crofters from the Lews to the shores of Loch Bracadale. Macleod's reply was in the affirmative, provided the Board paid all outlays, including the taking over of sheep stock upon valuation terms. In consequence of this the Board sent its inspectors, and several farms were inspected. The schemes provided for the migration of men from the Lews and Harris. Lists of applicants for the Macleod's estate were drawn up and placed before the proprietor, who then withdrew his promised co-operation and stated that if the Government considered migration was essential they should purchase the land. I do not think I need go into the actual schemes which were mentioned by the noble Lord; that would be taking up your Lordships' time unnecessarily; but I have given an account of what happened, and I Lave corrected the only point in the Question of the noble Lord which required correction, and that is that it is uncertain how many of the men from the Lews and Harris will be migrated if this scheme obtains the sanction of the Land Court.
I pass to the second Question—whether His Majesty's Government think the proposal is a reasonable one in the form in which it has been made. His Majesty's Government do consider the proposal a reasonable one in view of the impossibility
274
of meeting the demand for holdings from suitable applicants in the Lews and Harris. Your Lordships are perfectly well aware that the conditions in the Lews and Harris cannot be dealt with except by migration or emigration. Even in the short time in which I have represented the Scottish Office in your Lordships' House the Government has been reproached several times for not dealing with the conditions in the Lews. Now the only way in which the Board of Agriculture can deal with those conditions is by migrating some of the congested population. In order to do so they must find somewhere to which to migrate them. These people desire to remain in the islands if possible because they want to retain their boats and to continue fishing. I am informed that after diligent search nowhere more suitable than these farms of the Macleod's could be found. Therefore I put this to you as a question of necessity. The Scottish Board of Agriculture has no desire to interfere with proprietors and is sorry to have to do so, but it is bound to do so to meet a great public need.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Why do they not purchase?
LORD EMMOTT: I am coining to that. In the exercise of a public duty seine one must be interfered with. I desire to say in regard to the Macleod that he is well known to be an excellent landlord and to have the interests of his tenants at heart. But I defend this action of the Board of Agriculture as a necessary measure to help to remove the congestion. In regard to the question of any loss sustained by the landlord, the Macleod will obtain compensation under subsection (11) of Section 7 for everything directly attributable to the constitution of new holdings. I was dealing with a similar question the other day, and I stated then what is the fact, that there is an appeal on a point of law as regards the compensation awarded by the arbiter in some of these cases. But the arbiters so far seem to have taken everything into account and to have allowed very liberal compensation. I further desire to say that if the Court sanctions the schemes which are being put before it the landlord will be consulted about fire selection of tenants.
The noble Lord asked, very naturally, why the Board of Agriculture do not purchase instead of applying for a scheme

275
before the Land Court. The reason is that their resources are very limited, and that it would lock up far too much money to buy a large property of this kind. Another reason they have is that the purchase schemes, some of which were due to the action of the noble Lord himself and some of which were due to Lord Pentland, have not turned out such great successes that His Majesty's Government is very much enamoured of them or is desirous to proceed further in that direction. After all, the noble Earl opposite (Lord Camperdown) often complains, and I dare say will complain again, of the old purchase scheme for which the various Boards have been responsible in the past. I say frankly that His Majesty's Government do not feel at the present moment at all inclined to increase the number of those schemes.
The only other Question is as to the publication of the correspondence. The correspondence in this case was all in regard to the negotiation stage, and the Board of Agriculture has an immense correspondence not only with the Macleod but with other landlords in regard to these matters. Correspondence of that kind is carried on as a rule, and is understood to be carried on, in a confidential way and not with a view to publication; and although I do not think there is any reason why the Board of Agriculture should be afraid of publishing this particular correspondence—in fact, I am pretty sure there is not—they feel, on the broad public ground that this correspondence is not meant for publication, that they cannot assent to its publication. They feel that if either House were able to ask for the publication of negotiations of this kind relating to a very preliminary stage of dealings in land in Scotland it would be against the public interest. Therefore, with the greatest possible regret, I must ask the noble Lord not to press for the publication of this correspondence.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech which has just been made. The noble Lord does not in any way contradict Lord Balfour's assertion that this is the largest scheme of the kind that has been proposed. But while the Board are perfectly prepared to undertake a scheme of this magnitude, are they certain that if that scheme is approved by the Court
276
the men will migrate from the Lews? I say this for this reason, that in 1906 the Congested Districts Board had inquiries made by the parish council of Stornoway in their district, and that that parish council, knowing all the difficulties of the case and having inquired, reported that none of the cottars, squatters, or crofters were found to be in favour of migration to the mainland or to other parts of Scotland. That is six years ago. Then a year or two ago a farm was purchased in Ross, and it was said—I do not know whether it was true or not —that it was intended for migrants from the Lews. Well, whether the migrants from the Lews were or were not prepared to go I cannot say, but the rumour was received in the most unsympathetic manner in the district to which these migrants, whoever they were, were to be transported, and that was dropped. Therefore the Board at that time found themselves—I refer to the farm to which I have alluded in your Lordships' House before, called Seafield—the Board found themselves with this land which they had purchased and for which they had no tenants. They had to look for tenants where they could, and there has been a great deal of difficulty there ever since. Therefore in the, first place is it quite certain that these 150 families will be prepared to go? I am by no means certain that it is so. In the next place, suppose they go to Skye, will they be welcome among the people who are in Skye? That is a most important question, because it by no meat's follows that because there are smallholders in Syke—and, as the noble Lord knows, there are a great many smallholders there because Macleod has done a great deal in that way and has to the utmost of his power assisted the establishment of smallholdings—the persons who are already in that district will be altogether satisfied to have these 150 families dumped down in their midst.
Then we come to what is to be the result financially. I think if I were so disposed I could make a very safe prophecy as to what would be the result financially. But how is it proposed to deal with this matter in the first instance? Lord Balfour has said, "If you wish to make a large experiment of this kind, you ought to buy Macleod's property"; but the noble Lord opposite says, "No, we are not prepared to buy the property, and

277
the reason is that we do not think it would be a lucrative transaction." But is that a reason for imposing this loss upon Macleod? Then there is this further point. These tenants who are to be put on Macleod's estate are tenants who are imposed upon him whether he will or whether he will not. What security has for the receipt of their rents hereafter? If he is not paid he will have the very unpleasant alternative of going to Court to make these men pay their rents; and probably those rents will most of them not exceed £5.
Then with regard to the general question, by multiplying the number of these small crofters—because they are crofters and nothing else; you cannot call them anything else—by multiplying these crofters indefinitely and populating all that portion of the West of Scotland with small crofters, where is the additional labour to come from and how are they to be employed? Do you think t hey earn live on a croft the rent of which does not exceed £5? The thing is too absurd. And remember what Lord Balfour said about rates. The other day complained in this House of two schemes. One was at Strathnevar, a property which had been bought from the Duke of Sutherland, and that land had been resold to the settlers. In each case the settlers did not pay their annuities, and then they applied to be allowed to revert to the position of tenants. The Government agreed. They said, "Yes, you can go back from your bargain, and in place of being owners you will become tenants." What has the result of that been? I will tell you in two or three figures with regard to those two places what the result is. I am doing this as an illustration of what I think is likely, in fact is sure, to happen in other cases. Syre cost in one way and another £13,480. The annuities for land proper, not including the shooting rent of £250, which, after all, is the chief asset on the place, was £140. Well, they would not pay it, so they went to arbitration, and the result was that the fair rent that was fixed came out at £109 9s. But then the Board, by way of receiving this £109 9s. rent, became liable for owner's rates, and that was the point on which Lord Balfour laid so much stress. And what do your Lordships suppose the amount of those rates was? This arrangement has been in existence for two years,
278
and the first year the rates were £88 and the second year they were £90. Now the total rent was £109 9s. and the rates £88 or £90: so the result of the outlay of that £13,480 is this. There is a shooting rent, much despised, but it is the only asset of this part of the district, of £250; but in addition to that there is only £20 from the land. Net receipts, £20 ! Outlay, £13,000 !
Barra is even worse. This happened in Barra? Barra cost the taxpayers of this country £12,140; that is when it was bought. The annuities in repayment of the land came to £204. That they would not pay any longer, so their arrangement was altered and instead of being owners they became tenants. The fair rent that was fixed in this ease was £02 17 s. instead of £204; but your Lordships must, of course, remember that in that £201 there was a certain amount; in regard to the fact that it was a purchase and not a mere annual rent. But, then the Board, out of this £92 17 s., became liable for owner's rates, and in 1912–13 those were £78 and in the next year they were £68. Therefore the net result to the taxpayers in that case is this. They expended £12,440, and they received in net rent £19 or £20 ! It would be cheap in both those cases to give the land to the people and to beg them to be satisfied with paying nothing to anybody; reserving, of course, the only valuable asset, which is the £250 shooting rent on Syre. Those are the two cases that I mentioned the other day, and I am bound to say that I have obtained these figures by inquiry at the Board of Agriculture, so therefore I know that they are all correct. You will have exactly that same sort of thing here if you enlarge the number and the acreage of these smallholdings, all these being small people who have no outside means of employment. I really do not know what will result to this part of Scotland. One would suppose that Scotland is going mad. The loss to the taxpayer will be beyond anything your Lordships can conceive. In this case the Government say, "We are not prepared to purchase." I have no doubt they are not. But what do they do? They put it on Macleod.
LORD EMMOTT: He gets compensation. The noble Earl must be familiar with the arbitrations that have beers made in regard to these matters. As I showed

279
only a few days ago in regard to two estates, the compensation allowed in some cases for the diminution in shooting and fishing rent values, etc., amounted to twelve years purchase or thereabouts to the landlords besides in some cases six or seven years to the tenants.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes, but you are allowed compensation only where you can prove that you have sustained actual loss whether in the selling value of your estate or otherwise. I will point out to your Lordships how it is worked by the Board of Agriculture. It immediately becomes to the interest of the Board of Agriculture to make the rent from the new holders as nearly as possible the same figure as the old rent, because then there is no compensation to pay. That is one of the objections to this system. Observe how it works. Seven years hence round comes your Land Court and cuts down that rent by fifty per cent., if we are to judge of their future by their past. I will only say in conclusion that everything Lord Balfour has said appears to me quite reasonable. If this country is determined to perpetuate and to increase a system of smallholdings which are uneconomic, this country ought to be sufficiently liberal to pay for it and not throw the cost of it on to the unfortunate proprietors.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite who represents the Scottish Office informs us that His Majesty's Government consider the proposal which has been made to the Macleod a reasonable proposal. Now I venture to say that that is a view which would not be accepted by any audience, I do not care where you seek it, to whom the facts of the case were fully explained. How did the noble Lord proceed to establish his case? He told us that it was necessary to do something to relieve the congestion which exists in the Lews. We are all agreed as to that. He said that migration was desirable and that it was necessary to find some place to which the people might be migrated. Again we do not differ from him. Then he said that the people desired very much to remain in the neighbouring islands. That we quite understand. And, finally, he said that these farms, the property of the Macleod, were suitable for the experiment. I am quite ready to make a present to the noble Lord of all those propositions; I will take them as established.
280
But when the noble Lord tells us that the proper way of giving effect to this policy is to collect 150 families from these islands and to dump them down on this unfortunate gentleman's property, to make him really responsible for them in the future, then I part company with him altogether. Surely the reasonable thing in a case of that kind is to do what I believe is always done in Ireland. When the Congested Districts Board require land they purchase it from the owner and try the experiment themselves and at their own risk. When it was suggested by my noble friend that this was a case in which purchase might have been resorted to, the noble Lord opposite said, "Oh, but the proprietor receives compensation." My Lords, no compensation will really be an adequate solatium to a man who finds his estate still left upon his hands and left upon his hands under these deplorable conditions. But the noble Lord went further. He gave us with great frankness—he always talks frankly to us—the reasons why the Board did not desire to resort to purchase in this particular case. He said the Board would not purchase because their funds were limited and the lock up was too large. I dare say their funds may be limited, and it may be a considerable lock up; but that is not a sufficient reason for doing what is, after all, a very grave injustice to the Macleod who, by the noble Lord's own admission, is a very good landlord and has shown himself throughout these transactions ready to meet the Government Department in a reasonable spirit.
But the noble Lord added another reason. He said that the Board were reluctant to purchase because their purchase schemes had not been a success. What an admission ! It is an admission that purchase would have been a thoroughly unsound proposition, and that therefore because the Department did not desire to involve themselves in it they imposed the risk and the trouble upon this unfortunate gentleman. I never heard a more inadequate explanation of what seems to me to be an act of great injustice. The noble Lord said that the experience of the Board rendered them not inclined to increase the number of their purchase schemes. Exactly. Therefore they propose to try an experiment upon the corpus vile of the Macleod instead of with funds of their own production. I am not very much surprised

281
that His Majesty's Government decline to produce the correspondence which led to that denouement; but I think we have elicited enough this evening to form a pretty clear opinion as to what the purport of that correspondence was. And I must say that my noble friend has elicited the fact of what I can only describe as a very great wrong that has been done to a perfectly innocent individual.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not want to continue the discussion, but I desire to touch on one or two points. The noble Lord opposite was using the argumentum ad hominem to me because I was as partly responsible for the purchase of Syre and Strathnevar. That is true. I was, as Secretary for Scotland, responsible for the purchase of those two places. But if the figures are looked into it will be found that we made a satisfactory bargain so far as the value to the then landlord was considered. I ventured to hope that the stimulus of ownership would get these smallholders to exert themselves, and, as has been the case in Ireland, be the means of turning them into a satisfactory community. That experiment has, I am afraid, to a large extent, failed. But if I say it has failed it should be regarded rather as an object lesson than as an example; and I am not at all sure that even if it is repeated under more favourable circumstances it carries a guarantee of success. The important point about it is this, that if you are going to undertake this pokey I believe it to be worth while to undertake it in the general interest; it should be undertaken, as I ventured to do it, at the public expense and not to the detriment of the individual landowner.
The noble Lord said that Macleod would get compensation for anything directly due to the scheme. So he will. But the Board of Agriculture and the Land Court together, while they will give compensation for disturbance to the tenant for sheep and certain compensation to the landlord for things which now happen, I do not suppose that the noble Lord and the Secretary for Scotland will contend that future reductions of rent will be regarded as directly due to this scheme and that for that the landlords will get any compensation. Look what the position is. At the present time this land is let at fair rents to a certain number of substantial tenants, who are making
282
their money and who have made their money and paid their rents for years, and the landlord runs, comparatively speaking, no risks, He pays his rates, he pays his repairs, and be executes all the obligations of a landlord. But look at what is going to happen if these families are put on the estate and do not thrive. They will either go bankrupt and not be able to pay their rents, and it will be a difficult thing to remove them; or, as the noble Earl said, the Land Court will go round and reduce the rents. Now all these things are wholly beyond the control of the landlord. He has a self-contained reasonable possession at the present time with only the ordinary risk between landlord and tenant of the rise and fall in prices and so on, and he exercises a discretion whether he will continue a tenancy. But here a number of men are put on him over whom he will have no control. They may be bad in their habits, they may be unthrifty, and they may not know how to farm, and he will have to stand the loss. If it is the case that the experiment on Syre has failed and the State has been put to loss and expense in regard to it, of course we all regret it; but that at the same time is no excuse for deliberately, in the light of that example, putting this unfortunate landlord into the, I think, unfair position into which apparently he is going to be put.

GUIDE LECTURE.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government, having regard to the promises of further consideration made in the discussion on 20th May—
Whether, as stated in the Press, pay days at the Victoria and Albert Museum have been abolished.
Whether they have come to any decision as to the appointment of a guide lecturer at the Imperial Institute.
Whether at Kew Gardens steps have now been taken to make the system of guide lecturer better known to the public by means of placards and advertisements in the Press, and in conjunction with the railway companies.
Whether they will state what are the numbers that have gone round with the guide in Kew Gardens from 1st January to 30th June, 1914, as compared with the small number of 203 during the whole of last year.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord, in reply to the first part of his Question, that it is quite trite that pay days at the Victoria and Albert Museum have been abolished from the 1st of this month. With regard to the second Question, the Imperial Institute is not controlled directly by Parliament although the Government makes a grant. The authorities have agreed to appoint a guide lecturer as an experiment. The appointment will be made in the autumn of this year. With regard to the third Question, in respect of Kew Gardens, twenty-one notice boards displaying large posters giving full details of the tours of the guide lecturer are placed outside and within the gates of the Royal Botanic Gardens. Fourteen of these are placed outside the gates and seven within the grounds, two being at the Refreshment Pavilion. Large posters are displayed in the waiting rooms of the Colonial Office and the Royal Colonial Institute, and in the offices of the High Commissioners for Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand, and in the offices of the Agents-General for Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, and Queensland. The Crown Agents for the Colonies and the Agent-General for Western Australia, who were unable to find space for the display of the poster, have been supplied with copies of the leaflet.
In May last the Board issued a communiqué to the principal newspapers of England and Wales calling attention to the fact that the services of a guide at Kew were available for the public, and giving particulars of the small charge made. The Board have now decided to advertise at once in the leading London daily newspapers that a guide is available for visitors to Kew, and to give in such advertisement particulars of the arrangements as to hours of starting, terms, etc. The Board have also arranged with the Underground Railway Company that the company, when advertising Kew Gardens as one of the attractions of their line, will call attention to the fact that the services of a guide are available, and the Board are also approaching the London and North-Western and London and South Western Railway Companies with a view to these companies adopting a similar course by means of referring to the guide in their leaflets or booklets in which
284
Kew Gardens are mentioned. Lastly, the number of visitors who have availed themselves of the guide lecturer from January I to June 30 of this year is 441 at the morning tours and 641 at the afternoon tours, a total of 1,082 and an average of 3.5 per tour. The number 203 referred to by the noble Lord alludes to the period front April 1, 1913, when the guide was appointed, to December 31, 1913, and not for the whole twelve months of 1913, as the noble Lord seems to think from the last paragraph of his Question.

POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

THE SITUATION IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Viscount opposite, I should like to ask him whether he is able to give the House any further information as to the situation in South-Eastern Europe.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I am afraid I have very little information to give, indeed hardly any. Your Lordships are already acquainted from the public prints with the important fact that war has been declared by Austria-Hungary against Servia. All Europe, need hardly say, is keenly alive to the far-reaching possibilities that are brought into view by this step. As to the best way of averting the spread of the war beyond the area immediately and primarily concerned all the other Powers are engaged in active communications. As to the part of His Majesty's Government in these international communications there is nothing to add, I think, to what was said yesterday afternoon by my noble friend the Leader of the House. Your Lordships may rest assured of, the earnest and unremitting efforts of His Majesty's Government, well acquainted as they are with all the complications and difficulties of the European position, to aid the cause of international peace and to avoid a vast catastrophe.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection. That the following Lords be proposed to the Rouse to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bilis; (viz.),

D. Wellington (Chairman),

E. Northosk,

E. Chichester,

L. Braye,

L. Lvell;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be
286
heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

FINANCE BILL.
Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.

TRADE MARKS BILL.
To be read 2ª To-morrow (The Lord Southwark).
House adjourned five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past ten o'clock.