Sitting of 9 August 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SMAKEB in the Chair.
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
Copy presented of Administrative Concessions to Old Age Pensioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 886 (Zanzibar, Annual Report for 1915) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
    Sir HAROLD ELVERSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether men who are enrolled in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Anti-Aircraft Corps, and have been trained in the use of anti-aircraft guns and searchlights for a considerable period, are now receiving conscript forms calling them up for military service; (2) whether, assuming the military authorities have the right to call them up, an opportunity will be given to the so-called half-time married men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Anti-Aircraft Corps to volunteer for full-time duty and so place themselves on an equal footing with other members of the corps; and (3) in view of the fact that numbers of men from the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Anti-Aircraft Corps who went to attest were refused permission to do so at different recruiting offices, being told that they were already in His Majesty's Services and that it was unnecessary to attest, and in view of the fact that all the men of this corps voluntarily signed on for the duration of the War and are subject to the
    1022
    Naval Discipline Act, whether instructions will be issued that these men are not to be discharged from His Majesty's Navy for the purpose of making them conscripts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (.Dr. Macnamara): So far as I am aware, no members of the Anti-Aircraft Corps who desired to attest were refused permission to do so. If they were, the refusal was not in accordance with our desire or advice. If vacancies occur, half-timers in the corps, if recommended, will be given an opportunity to volunteer for full-time duty in the corps. I should add to that statement that there are no vacancies at present. As regards half-timers, as I have already indicated, so far as we are concerned every opportunity has been given to them to attest; if they have not done so they are now liable to be called up under the Military Service Act. When so called up they have the right to express preference for service in the Navy, and if the Admiralty desires to avail itself of their services they will be transferred to naval service.

    RUSSIAN JEWS.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that applications to join the Navy have been repeatedly made by Russian Jews, and as recently as 29th July a Russian Jew was refused at Hammersmith as being an alien; and whether Russian Jews recently refused at Stratford and Hammersmith will now be allowed to join the Navy instead of being deported?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Only men and boys who are the sons of British-born subjects are now accepted for entry in any branch of the Naval Service.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I inquire how it is that in these questions there is the underlying assumption that our gallant Allies are unjust and oppressive to their subjects?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not read that into this question: it is a simple question.

    TRANSPORTS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why the Government refused to allow transports proceeding empty to Egypt to take out from this country iron

    1023
    bands so essential for baling Egyptian cotton and so useful for baling hay for Army horses; and whether, in coming to this decision, the resulting loss to Egypt, the cotton trade of this country, and the military authorities was considered?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid my hon. and gallant "Friend has been misinformed. In the first place, no transports are proceeding empty from this country to Egypt, and, in the second, the Admiralty, when approached, offered to assist in shipment of these bands if the suppliers found it impossible to secure freight. Nothing further was heard of the matter.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Commissioner?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not gone very fully into the matter, but I shall be very glad to have any information the hon. Gentleman has in his possession.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. M. BARLOWasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will have the case of Temporary Lieutenant C. A. Schurr, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, who died recently of enteric, inquired into; whether his widow is entitled to a pension; if not, whether a gratuity can be granted to her, and of what amount?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The case of the late Temporary Lieutenant C. A. Schurr, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, is at present under consideration, it being necessary to decide to what extent, if any, his death was attributable to the Service. A decision on this point will be reached in a day or two, and the widow will then be informed as to the amount of the award (whether pension or gratuity) for which she may be eligible. She will not, in any case, receive less than a gratuity of one year's pay of her husband's rank.

    DIVERSION OF VOYAGE.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why a steamship when on a voyage to Alexandria was diverted from her course to land an officer and four or five cases of goods at Malta at a cost to the public of at least £1,000 for coal consumed and time wasted; and will he state
    1024
    why the officer and goods could not have been conveyed by one of the boats which call regularly at that island?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am calling for a report on this matter.

    PALM KERNELS.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that copra can be used with better advantage than palm kernels for the manufacture of margarine and cattle food; whether he is aware that Germany can obtain ample supplies of copra outside the British Empire; and what steps he proposes to take to achieve, the object of an Export Duty on palm kernels from West Africa?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is impossible to make any exact statement on the second part of the question. The object of the Export Duty in question is to secure that the palm kernels from West Africa, which were ground mainly in Germany before the War, and which are now being ground here, shall continue to be ground in this country after peace is declared, and I have every reason to believe that this result will be attained.
    Mr. KEATING: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House upon whose authority he has answered that the first part of the question is in the negative?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that in the absence of my right hon. Friend. I am only answering on behalf of the Colonial Secretary.

    LONDON IRISH CLUB.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether the premises of the London Irish Club, the Union of the Four Provinces, have been seized; and, if so, whether he can inform the House of the circumstances that have led to this step?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I understand from the inquiry which I have caused to be made that the premises in question have been taken possession of. I understand that they were wanted for the use of the Ministry of Munitions. No doubt my hon. Friend will, if he requires

    1025
    any further information, address a question to my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Munitions.

    HAY PRICES.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary of State for War what was the average price paid per ton for hay in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, respectively, last year; and is it the intention of the War Office to allow the same price for hay in Ireland during the coming autumn and winter as that paid in Great Britain?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Irish price for hay during the ensuing year will be, approximately, 5s. per ton less than that paid in Great Britain. Last year's prices were on the same basis, but sufficient time has not been given to collect the figures and arrive at the averages for the different countries.
    Mr. KEATING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of people who sell hay to the military are waiting for their money?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is a question bearing on that point.

    FIELD PUNISHMENTS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of all the facts connected with the punishment of Driver Graham, namely, that it was his first offences; that every practical motor driver knows that it is at times practically impossible to keep the speed of the motor down to six miles an hour; and that the punishment inflicted was that of the severest nature; will he restore to Mrs. Graham the money of which she has been deprived; and whether, if he is unable to do this and the money is raised by public subscription, any further punishment of Driver Graham will follow?
    Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Burnley he will see that all that he asks for in this question is covered by the undertaking I gave on behalf of my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

    SIR FRANCIS VANE.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that
    1026
    Major Sir Francis Vane received a written order from the Viceroy appointing him major on the recruiting staff in Ireland on 31st March, 1916; that on the outbreak of the rebellion Sir Francis Vane volunteered to help in its suppression, and was appointed by garrison order of 24th April a major attached to the 3rd Royal Irish Rifles; that on the 8th May he was recommended by the brigadier commanding the 178th Brigade for his distinguished conduct at the attack on the South Dublin Union, 27th April, as a major commanding the attacking force; that Sir Francis Vane reported in person to Lord Kitchener, as a major, the murders of Messrs. Skeffington, Dickson, and M'Intyre, and was thanked for so doing; that he was ordered to return to England by Sir John Maxwell to report as a major at headquarters, London; and whether he authorised the communication to this officer from the Army Council that, in view of the Report of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland (Sir J. Maxwell), he would be relegated to unemployment and would relinquish the temporary rank of captain from the date of the communication?
    Mr. FORSTER: On the third and fourth parts of this question I have nothing to add to what has been stated in the previous replies which have been given. As regards the first point, I am aware that Sir Francis Vane was appointed to perform recruiting duties, but I have no knowledge of any written order from the Viceroy. What is stated in the second part of the question is, no doubt, correct. It would be a local arrangement, details of which would not be reported to the War Office. As regards the fifth part of the question, it has not, I think, ever been suggested that Sir Francis Vane was disobeying orders when he came to London and gave information on what had happened. When it was reported from Ireland that the services of Sir Francis Vane were no longer required for recruiting duties he automatically ceased to be employed, and his temporary commission was automatically terminated.
    Mr. HEALY: What has Sir Francis Vane done to incur the censure of the Government, beyond reporting to Lord Kitchener the fact of three murders being committed in Ireland? And is it because of that you would not even allow him to retain his temporary rank of captain?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, so far as I am aware that has nothing to do with it.
    An HON. MEMBER: How did you get at it, then?
    Mr. HEALY: How did you discover this gentleman until he came over specially and reported these three abominable murders?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is probably not aware of an answer that I previously gave to this question. If he will refer to it he will see that Sir Francis Vane ceased to be employed in a military capacity in June, 1915.
    Mr. HEALY: How is it you took his services and allowed him to risk his life during the rebellion?
    Mr. FORSTER: That was a matter for the Viceroy.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOBS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will have an inquiry made into the treatment of E. J. Cornwell and J. J. Cornwell, of 54, Spencer Street, Norwich, conscientious objectors, who were arrested on 2nd June, handed over to the military on 3rd June, sent to Falmer Camp on 5th June, attached to the 9th Royal West Surrey Regiment, and on 12th June sentenced to twenty-eight days' detention and sent to Lewes Gaol and, on this being found to be illegal, were brought back to Shoreham Camp, were sentenced by court-martial to twelve months' hard labour, commuted to 112 days on 30th June, and seven days later the Norwich Tribunal decided their cases and granted them exemption from combatant service; as these men were illegally arrested while their cases were undecided by the tribunal, what action he proposes to take against the military officials responsible for this illegality; and will he order the immediate release of these two men and the cancellation of their military sentences and give them adequate compensation for the treatment they have received?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made into the circumstances in which these men were arrested. At present I am informed that their cases are before the Central Tribunal, in accordance with the arrangement outlined by the Prime Minister in his statement of the 29th June.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask if any action has been taken in regard to the illegal conduct of the military in arresting these men?
    Mr. FORSTER: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked why eight conscientious objectors named Wheeldon, Groome, Carrier, Clarke, Rogers, Hollingsworth, Sims, and Cook, who were sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour for refusing to obey military orders, and transferred to the civil prison at Derby, and their sentences reduced to fifty-six days, this sentence having expired on 26th July, were sent back to the Army and placed straight into the guardroom at Seaburn hutments, Roker, though they had committed no further military offence; and why these men were not treated under the new scheme end given the offer of work under the Home Office scheme?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that arrangements have now been completed whereby all conscientious objectors whose cases have not been reached by the Central Tribunal during the currency of their sentences are sent on furlough with permission to wear plain clothes. They are required to furnish their addresses and they will receive a communication in due course from the Central Tribunal in regard to the presentation of their case. Men in detention are being sent direct on furlough from the detention barracks, but it is not possible to make these arrangements in regard to civil prisons (owing to there being no military authorities there competent to carry out the furlough) and in consequence such men are being sent back to their unit for the sole purpose of their furlough being arranged and carried out. Inquiry will be made as to why these men were placed in the guardroom and they will be sent on furlough forthwith, if such procedure has not already been carried out. The hon. Member will doubtless realise that owing to the fact that these men were in a civil prison a certain amount of interdepartmental delay is bound to arise.
    I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that in regard to men who have been undergoing sentences of detention steps were taken on the 29th July last to give effect to this procedure, and all conscientious objectors who have been released from detention are now on furlough with permission to wear plain

    1029
    clothes awaiting the review of their cases at the hands of the Central Tribunal. Instructions have been given that their furlough should be made out as from the "date on which furlough was given "until" they receive a notification from the War Office to rejoin "Such notification will not be sent unless their cases are rejected by the Central Tribunal, and if the tribunal upholds their appeal they will be forthwith transferred to Section W of the Army Reserve, under the conditions announced in the Prime Minister's statement of the 29th June. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, these cases have not been treated under the new scheme for the reason that the Central Tribunal have not yet reached their cases.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him if he will make further inquiry into these particular cases to see why seven out the eight have been treated as stated in the answer, but the eighth man, Sims, has not been so treated? Can the hon. Gentleman inquire why this discrimination has been made?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; I will make inquiries.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Home Secretary whether conscientious objectors will be called upon to sign any documents before undertaking work under the direction of the Home Office Committee; if so, what safeguards are to be set up that the terms of such agreements are adhered to; and whether the Government will give an undertaking that conscientious objectors shall not be required to sign conditions that might be formulated later?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The persons referred to will be invited to sign a paper showing that they understand and accept the conditions on which they are released for employment on work of national importance under the civil authority. These conditions will, however, apply whether they sign the paper or not. If they fail to observe the conditions, they will return to prison if still under sentence, or, if not under sentence, they will be recalled to military service. So long as they observe the conditions they will be entirely free from military control.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if the Home Office scheme for
    1030
    dealing with conscientious objectors referred to them by the Central Tribunal is now complete; if so, will he give particulars of the scheme; can he state how many cases have been received from the Central Tribunal; and if the men who have expressed their willingness to accept work under this scheme are now actually employed under it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Arrangements have now been completed by the Committee for the employment of some hundreds of men on the upkeep and repair of important public roads under the Road Board. The number of cases received from the Central Tribunal up to this morning is 110. Of these, fifty will be discharged on Monday next and sent to their place of employment, and it is hoped to discharge the remainder a day or two later.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration in formulating this scheme that some of these men might be very much better employed in the national interest in following the trades in which they are skilled?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Committee which is dealing with the matter are taking all these considerations into account.

    THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that five theological students in immediate preparation for the ministry at Carmarthen College, who had been refused exemption at Carmarthen, were given leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal on the ground that they came under Army Regulation 462, but that the Central Tribunal refused the appeal as the question whether the Regulation applied to these men was not a matter within their jurisdiction; whether the Regulation means anything and, if so, what; and whether, until some consistent and final interpretation of the words, immediate preparation for the ministry is given by some competent authority, he will undertake that theological students shall not be called up who are actually preparing for the ministry without any intention of taking intermediate employment before entering it?
    Mr. FORSTER: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question I would remind him that the duty of the tribunals constituted under the Military Service Acts of 1916 is to consider applications for

    1031
    exemption from military service on certain grounds set out in these Acts, while instructions issued by the Army Council to its own officers deal amongst other matters with administrative questions concerned with calling men to the Colours and are not addressed to tribunals. Army Council Instruction 462 was cancelled by a later Instruction of 30th May, which instructs recruiting officers not to call up men liable; for service who fall into certain? categories without special instructions from the War Office. Such an instruction does not affect the right of the men concerned to apply to tribunals.
    In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's question, the definition of immediate preparation is a matter for the Army Council to decide. In doubtful cases the responsible authorities of each religious body have been consulted by the Army Council. For example: the Archbishop of Canterbury has informed the Army Council that as a general principle he does not desire any delay in the case of Church of England students at present studying, and the Wesleyan Methodists adopted a similar attitude some time ago. The question of more definite interpretation in relation to other denominations is now under consideration by the Army Council. Pending the completion of this reconsideration the Army Council does not at present propose to call up such students if certified by the head of a theological college to have commenced their studies for the ministry before 4th August, 1914.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: As one of these students has already been called up will the hon. Gentleman see that his calling-up is cancelled if I give him the name?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will make inquiries first.

    CLERICAL DUTIES.
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to consider applications to release from Army service men passed for Home service only who are engaged by the military authorities in inferior clerical and similar duties, which can be performed by other persons, including women, provided such men would appear to be of more national value in their civil occupation, that acceptable substitutes be supplied, and the persons released make themselves efficient members of the Volunteer Defence Corps, or submit to other reasonable conditions of release?
    Mr. FORSTER: A scheme of substitution on the lines indicated in tae question is in force already in certain districts, where it has been tried experimentally; as experience is gained by the staffs in the commands, districts and areas, it is being extended to the whole country. In order to secure effective working, the whole scheme is being decentralised so far as possible.
    Mr. PRINGLE: When will the scheme be put into operation in the Eastern Command?
    Mr. FORSTER: I could not say.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Will any general information be issued so that the public at large may be aware of it?

    IRISH MIGRATORS LABOURERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the annoyance caused to Irishmen who were sent to Great Britain by their trade unions since the outbreak of war; if he is aware that Irishmen temporarily resident are being served with Army Form W 3,236 calling them up under the Military Service Act; and if he will cause instructions to be issued making it clear that Irishmen temporarily resident in Great Britain do not come under the Military Service Act?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question whether a person is ordinarily resident in Great Britain within the meaning of the Military Service Act can, if disputed, be settled only by a Civil Court. Prima facie a man who has been resident and employed in Great Britain for a substantial period would be considered as having become ordinarily resident, and in that case he would receive a calling-up notice under the Military Service Act if he were otherwise liable for service.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Irish labourers are being invited to come over to this country and work on munitions, and, despite the fact that they are given an assurance that they will be exempt from military service, that only recently two of these men, brought over under these conditions, were fined for not having registered under the Act although ignorant of its existence, and next day received notices from the military authorities calling them up?
    Mr. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that certain railways have em-

    1033
    ployed these men and that other men in consequence are refusing to work and threatening to strike?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of either case, but, on the facts, as stated by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), I am very much surprised to hear that men ordinarily resident in Ireland, on coming over to this country under the pledge to which he has referred, can be held to be anything but temporarily resident here.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting an end to all these differences by applying the Military Service Act to Ireland?
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Exchanges and trade unions of Ireland put up posters in Ireland giving guarantees to the men that if they would come to this country they would not be interfered with; and is he also aware that those guarantees were given by members of the Government to the trade unions?
    Mr. FORSTER: It seems to me that the whole difficulty turns on the question, whether the man is, or is not, ordinarily resident in this country. If there is any dispute, it can be settled on reference to the Civil Courts.
    Mr. BYRNE: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to the wholesale arrests in Scotland last week of Irishmen who have only come over since the outbreak of the War?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that question.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, as a large number of exemptions of agricultural labour for military service will expire soon after the coming harvest, he will define, for the guidance of the tribunals, the policy of the Government as to the necessity for maintaining for next year the highest possible output of Home-grown food supplies?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The policy of the Government in this matter remains the same as that which I stated in answer to a question in this House on the 11th of May last. The Government hold that the maintenance of the
    1034
    highest possible output of home-grown food supplies remains a national object of
    a most essential nature.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Does that apply to next year as well as to this year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

    MESOPOTAMIA.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he can give an assurance that the river craft used for conveying troops up and down the River Tigris and the River Euphrates have proper appliances for securing that the drinking water shall be uncontaminated and not dangerous to health; and (2) whether he is now able to assure the House that sufficient supplies of drugs, medicines, bandages, and other medical appliances have reached the troops at Basra, and in the stations on the lines of the Tigris and the Euphrates?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): My hon. Friend asks me for two assurances, but he will, I am sure, have taken into account that since the War Office assumed the additional responsibilities with which I dealt in the speech I made on the 20th July no sufficient time has elapsed for an appreciable change to have been effected in the situation as a direct result of the change of responsibility. Subject to its being understood that the Army Council do not claim that all has yet been done which should be done and will be done, I may inform him that, on all new boats ordered in the United Kingdom, arrangements for securing adequate proper drinking water have been made. Filtration barges are being sent, and supply tanks on various points in the river will be provided. As regards the vessels already on the spot, I am informed that an installation for sterilising water, recommended by the Director of Medical Services and the late Sir Victor Horsley, has already been provided on many ships and will be fitted to the remainder. Two tanks holding 40 gallons for cooling purposes have also been added on each vessel. A large number of hospital river steamers and barges have also been ordered. As regards drugs, medicines, bandages and other medical appliances, all demands have been supplied and, as the General Officer Commanding has repeatedly been told to ask for all he wants, I am satisfied that sufficient supplies are now available on the spot.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Does that sufficiency of supplies include tea, because there have been complaints that tea was not supplied?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no special information upon that point, but I will look into it.

    STEAMSHIP "COQUET."
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether anything further has been heard of the crew of the steamship "Coquet" in the hands of the Bedouin Arabs; whether it is possible for the relations of these men to send anything to them in the shape of clothing, food, etc; whether there is any probability of their release before the end of the War; and whether any steps can be taken to ensure their receiving proper treatment?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We have just heard that the members of the crew of the steamship "Coquet" have been handed over to us. They were expected to arrive at Bengasi on the 6th August.

    TRAINING RESERVE (SCOTTISH RECRUITS).
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the new corps of training reserve, separate training reserve battalions will be formed specially to supply drafts only to Lowland and Highland Scottish regiments; and whether lie can give an assurance that all Scottish Infantry recruits will have the right of claiming to be> allocated to Scottish regiments?
    Mr. FORSTER: Separate training reserve battalions will be provided for the Scottish command, and it is hoped by this means to ensure all Scottish recruits going to Scottish regiments. No definite pledge can be made, howeverߞas it must depend on military experienceߞbut the hon. Member may rest assured that every endeavour will be made to adhere to the above principle.

    HARVEST WORK (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for War whether 27,000 men are to be spared for harvest work in various
    1036
    parts of the country; whether he is aware that only forty-eight are allotted to the county of Wiltshire; and whether, in view of the need for harvest labour there and the importance of this county from an agricultural point of view, he will see that a more adequate allotment is made?
    Mr. FORSTER: The 27,000 men to be made available for harvest work throughout the country will be distributed to the best advantage, and on this point the Army Council will be guided by the advice of the Board of Agriculture. I think my hon. Friend was premature in concluding that the county of Wiltshire, well known to be an important agricultural county, had received a final allotment of forty-eight men.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say on what terms these men will be employed? Will they be paid the ordinary soldier's pay, and will any charge be made to the employers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Speaking generally, where the; men are employed as civilians they are treated as civilians in regard to their pay. Where they are employed in working parties under military command as soldiers, they receive the emoluments of soldiers.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is no charge made to the farmers for their services?
    Mr. FORSTER: The farmer has to pay the wages
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I make my question a little clearer? Where these men are employed on agricultural work as soldiers and receive soldier's pay, is the farmer expected to pay anybody anything in addition to the soldier's pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: Naturally we cannot allow the employers to make a profit out of the employment of soldiers.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Does the War Office make a profit out of the employment of soldiers? Does not the soldier, if employed as an agricultural labourer, get the ordinary agricultural labourer's wages in the district?
    Mr. FORSTER: He gets more.
    Mr. ANDERSON: He never gets less?
    Mr. FORSTER: The best thing I can do is to send the hon. Member the Army Order under which these arrangements are made.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In cases where men are employed in working parties under military command, to whom is the difference between ordinary agricultural labourer's pay and soldier's pay given?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not sure that the situation arises in connection with agricultural employment. It has arisen in connection with the shipment of munitions and things of that kind. The hon. Member will realise that we cannot allow contractors to make a profit out of the employment of soldiers, and, therefore, either in the terms of their contract or in other ways we expect them to pay to the State the full amount of the civil wages.

    PETEOL SUPPLY (HOSPITALS FOR WOUNDED.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the difficulty of carrying on many of the private hospitals for wounded soldiers owing to the inability of those providing them to obtain the necessary supplies of petrol?
    Mr. FORSTER: The attention of the War Office has been called to a few instances where inability to obtain necessary supplies of petrol have been alleged, and the hospitals concerned have been informed how to obtain their requirements. The proper course is for hospitals to bring their difficulties in this matter to the notice of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief of the Commands. It would save time if hospitals would communicate direct with the commands with whom the decision rests.

    OFFICERS' SICK LEAVE.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether an officer who is an inmate of a military hospital is on sick leave; and whether in the case of an officer who has been granted sick leave for three months with pay the sick leave dates from the time when he was admitted to hospital or the time when he was discharged from the hospital?
    Mr. FORSTER: The date from which an officer's sick leave begins is the date on which the medical board is held if it was held before the officer embarked for the United Kingdom from abroad; if the board was not held before the date of embarkation the officer's sick leave runs from the
    1038
    date of embarkation. The board is, where possible, held while the officer is in hospital overseas. If this is not possible it is held as soon as possible after arrival in the United Kingdom.

    ARMY CANTEEN SUPPLIES.
    Colonel HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the £163,000 transferred from the late Board of Control of Regimental Institutes to the Army Canteen Committee was derived largely from profits on purchases by men now at the front, and as units at the front have no source of income for their regimental funds, he will consider making a grant from this £163,000 to units at the front for the local purchase of fresh vegetables and other objects for the benefit of the men?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Belfast on 2nd August. My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that no units at the front have any source of income for regimental funds, and it is not at present considered advisable to make a Grant of the kind which he suggests. Fresh vegetables are, whenever procurable, provided as a part of the Service ration.
    Colonel HOPE: If it is not possible to buy fresh vegetables locally, could the regiments not have the money to purchase supplementary rations?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that is very desirable.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: In whose possession is the £163,000?
    Mr. FORSTER: It has accumulated under the management of the Board of Control of Regimental Institutes, but now the management of the canteen business has been transferred to the Army Canteen Committee. The £163,000 is in course of being transferredߞI cannot say whether it has actually been transferredߞto the Army Canteen Committee.
    Colonel HOPE: Do they get any allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: Speaking from memory, I think they get a rebate on the amount of purchases of mess supplies carried out is the canteens.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of spending this money on temperance huts?

    MILITARY CONTRACTS.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that out of 1,369 military contracts only 24 were placed in Ireland, or a percentage of 1.27; whether he can explain this disparity of custom; and whether the delay in establishing a properly equipped examining and receiving depot in Dublin is a reason why Irish manufacturers are unable to tender upon equal terms with British competitors for Army supplies for troops stationed in Ireland and elsewhere?
    Mr. FORSTER: The figures given in the first part of the question are approximately correct as regards contracts placed direct by the War Office, except that the percentage appears to work out at about 1.75 instead of 1.27. My Noble Friend and I recently received a deputation with regard to the establishment of a receiving depot at Dublin, and at their request an officer was sent to inquire into the matter. His Report has now been received and is under consideration.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the hon. Gentleman also consider the advisability of establishing another depot in Belfast to supply a much larger number of soldiers?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will consider it.
    Mr. FIELD: Is there any chance of a greater proportion of the custom being given to Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is slightly more than the proportion which my hon. Friend thought.

    MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN (COMMISSIONERS' REPORT).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the three Commissioners who have inquired into matters of medical supplies and transport in the campaign in Mesopotamia will be laid upon the Table before
    the House rises this month?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller Of the Household): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me on the 17th July to a supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Are we to understand that this Commission is not to report, and that the appointment of a new
    1040
    Commission is only to result in the suppression of the Report which we were led to expect?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir. It the hon. Member will refer to the reply to which I alluded he will see that the Secretary of State said that he was doing all he could to expedite the Report.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Has the hon. Gentleman not yet heard from the authorities in India whether they are prepared to send home that Report or not in order that it may be published?
    Mr. ROBERTS: He has not got anything further to say than what was contained in his answer.
    Sir H CRAIK: It is being concealed.
    Sir E. CARSON: How long are we to go on without having any explanation of the delay?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The explanation given on the 17th of July was that it was necessary to give the Government of India an opportunity of considering the Report.
    Sir E. CARSON: Does he not see that that is three weeks ago and we want to know what has been done meanwhile?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is the hon. Member aware that I asked that a telegram should be sent to India, and has no reply been received?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot say
    Sir H. CRAIK: It is subterfuge all through.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How long would it take to expedite this Report?

    INDIA (LAHORE BARRACKS).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received information, and, if so, what, in response to his inquiry in April last as to the provision of electric fans for cooling the hospital and barracks at Lahore?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The installation of electric fans in the hospital for British troops at Lahore has been sanctioned and I believe completed. The question of providing electric fans for barracks at Lahore and other cantonments where similar climatic conditions prevail is under consideration.

    WORKERS LODGING ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in estimating the wages of their workpeople for the purpose of Income Tax certain employers are including the 2s. 6d. daily extra allowance paid to workers in respect of lodging and expenses when employed a few days in the week in some place other than their homes; whether it is proper to regard such special allowance as wages and to include it in the returns for Income Tax; and, if not, will he take steps to inform employers and workpeople accordingly?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): Outworking and lodging allowancesߞpaid solely by way of subsistence allowances to workpeople temporarily employed away from homeߞare not regarded as earnings chargeable with Income Tax. The Surveyors of Taxes proceed upon this principle, and if and when the question arises employers and workpeople are so informed.

    WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether, in view of the fact that stockbrokers often advise their clients to invest considerable amounts in the aggregate in War Savings Certificates, he will reconsider his decision not to allow them the same commission as is granted to bankers in respect of such Certificates?
    Mr. McKENNA: I regret to be unable to modify the decision stated to the House in my answer to the hon. Member's question on the 2nd August.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that stockbrokers have been doing very badly, and that there is really no reason why they should not have the same proportion of the commission as bankers; and will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to state his reasons?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it out of order for me to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will indicate the grounds on which he differentiates between the two cases?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will look at the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the hon. Member
    1042
    himself on the 2nd of August, he will see the reasons given in full.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman mistaken in making that differentiation, and is it not a fact that the stockbrokers bring in in the aggregate a great many of these Certificates?
    Mr. McKENNA: The reason is given. It may be a bad one, but it is given.
    Sir J. D. REES: It is a bad one.

    SALE OF SUGAR (RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. PETOasked whether the restrictions on the sale of sugar operate in Ireland in the same manner and to the same extent as in Great Britain; and, if not, whether he will consider the propriety of rendering the restrictions necessitated by the War uniform in all parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the; first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable complaint amongst retailers in Ireland that speculators are allowed to accumulate stocks of sugar, and this prevents the retailers getting them at the normal price? Who looks after the supply of sugar in Ireland?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commission here do. If the hon. and learned Member will give me the circumstances of the case he has mentioned, I will see that the matter is inquired into at once.

    WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (CHARLES SARNO).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now perused the one or more affidavits of Charles Sarno produced in the High Court of Justice at the hearing of the applications made for a writ of habeas corpus; whether Charles Sarno deposed on oath that he was willing to enter the British Army; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have obtained a copy of the affidavit made by Sarno on the 18th July for the purpose of his first application to the High Court, in which he stated that

    1043
    he was willing to join the British Army. He had previously, however, volunteered the information to the police, on 16th June, that he did not propose to join the British or any other Army. In any case, I would repeat that the decision to deport this man had nothing to do with any question of military service. I may add that his removal from this country, which will be effected as soon as the arrangements can be completed, will comply with his latest wishes as expressed in a petition dated 31st July, namely, that he may be sent to Russia as soon as possible in order to aid his country against her enemies.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    MR. SHEEHY SKEFFINGTON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary (1) why Mrs. Sheehy Skeffington was not allowed to fetch away the body of her murdered husband, which lay on the floor of an outhouse in the Portobello Barracks all day long on 26th April; why was a similar request allowed in the case of another of Captain Colthurst's victims; why was the body hurriedly buried and the widow never officially notified; and what was the first date on which any officer, except Major Sir Francis Vane, reported that Captain Colthurst was insane or suspected of insanity; and (2) whether before Mr. Sheehy Skeffington was murdered on 26th April he requested that he might have a trial; why was that request not complied with; whether he is aware that Mr. Sheehy Skeffington requested that he might be allowed to see his wife before he died; and why was this request refused, seeing that the relatives of men condemned by courts-martial were allowed to see the convicts before execution?
    Mr. FORSTER: I venture again to suggest to the hon. Member that many, if not most, of the points raised in this question and the next, which I will answer at the same time, are sub judice, and it would therefore be improper for me to express any opinion at this stage. It has been, as the hon. Member is well aware, freely admitted that there was much that was regrettable in connection with this episode of the rebellion, but I suggest that, now that an inquiry has been granted, nothing is to be gained by action or by words which might tend to create prejudice either one way or the other.
    Mr. HEALY: Why was Sir Francis Vane dismissed? Was it because he belonged to the National Liberal Club?
    Mr. NUGENT: Will this inquiry also include the cases of the other people who were shot by Captain Colthurst and by those acting under his instructions?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Prime Minister tells me that will be so.

    MILITARY COMMANDANT.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that all sections of Nationalists in Ireland view with a certain amount of alarm the retention of General Sir John Maxwell as head of the military command there; will he say if General Sir Bryan Mahon has been recalled from Egypt; and, if so, will steps be taken to have him put in command of the forces in Ireland and thus, even to a small extent, help to allay that feeling of unrest which exists in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I am not aware that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The answer to the second part of the question is that Sir Bryan Mahon is home on sick leave from Egypt. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    WOUNDED PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he can say whether the wounded Irish prisoners transferred from Dublin hospitals to English prisons have yet been before the Advisory Committee, and what are their recommendations; and if he can give the names of those to be released?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have not complete information as to all the prisoners who may at some time have been in hospital; but on 8th July I received a list of seventeen then in hospital in Dublin. Of these, five are unfit for removal, and the orders for their internment have been revoked. Of the remaining twelve, nine have been released, and three remain interned on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. It would be contrary to practice to give lists of names in answer to questions.

    SHOOTING OF CONSTABLE FRITH.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state who was responsible for the shooting of Constable

    1045
    Frith in Dublin during the rising; and if compensation is to be paid to his dependants?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Constable Frith was shot through the window of his bedroom, at Store Street Barracks, on the 27th April last, and there is nothing to indicate by whom he was shot. The question of a gratuity to his dependants is receiving consideration.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be able to make a statement as to compensation or gratuity, as he calls it, before we proceed with the Bill giving compensation to property owners?
    Mr. DUKE: The matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend refers is under the consideration of the Government, and I hope that the Prime Minister, or some other member of the Cabinet, will be in a position, at an early date, to state the conclusion at which the Government have arrived. He will see that many considerations are involved as regards persons which do not arise in regard to property, and those considerations have to receive attention.
    Sir E. CARSON: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that compensation to the individual or his relatives is just as important as compensation to property owners?
    Mr. DUKE: I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will find that the point of view he is representing now will receive the sympathetic consideration of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. HEALY: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this man was shot through the window of the barracks, has he seen the letter of the man's brother giving the name, rank, and regiment of the soldier who shot him?
    Mr. DUKE: I have been informed that such a letter was published, but I have not had myself an opportunity of investigating this matter. I hope to have an opportunity at an early date; and if the facts are as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend that will, of course, differentiate the case and entitle the survivors to consideration different from that involved in the decision which has been arrived at.
    Sir E. CARSON: Are there different considerations if a man is shot by a soldier or a rebel?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not intend to convey any suggestion of the kind my right hon. and learned Friend indicates in his question; but the circumstances in which a man is shot, and matters of that kind, must be known before 'you can come to a decision as to whether compensation is proper and as to the degree of compensation.
    Mr. BYRNE: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted liability to compensation in this case, will the victims of the North King Street shooting also receive compensation?
    Mr. DUKE: I think I ought to have notice of that question.

    MR. JOHN BYRNE.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Home Secretary if the Advisory Committee can see their way soon to liberate Mr. John Byrne, lately of Gorey, county Wexford, and now detained in Frongoch Camp?
    Mr. SAMUEL: John Byrne, of Gorey, county Wexford, was released on the 1st August on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

    MR. MICHAEL W. O'REILLY.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say why Michael William O'Reilly, now at Reading-, was sentenced to 160 hours' solitary confinement on bread and water whilst at Frongoch Camp; if there were any labour troubles at the camp at this time; if O'Reilly was made aware of any complaint against him; if he had any opportunity to defend himself before being sentenced; and if he will state the recommendations of the Advisory Committee in this case?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 27th July to the hon. Member for North West-meath, which contains full particulars of this case. The Advisory Committee have recommended that O'Reilly should remain interned.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this man was punished; is he aware that there was labour trouble going on at that camp, that the men were

    1047
    getting 1½d. an hour to do some construction work in the camp, and that in the interests of trade unionism they thought it was not fair upon them to do the work?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will look at the answer to which I refer him he will find that it gives a full statement of the circumstances.

    INTERNED PRISONERS.
    Mr. HEALYasked the Home Secretary (1) what is the charge on which Mr. James Hannigan, of Mitchelstown, county Cork, is being detained at Frongoch; if the Advisory Committee was divided in its decision to keep him in gaol; will any public trial be afforded him; and (2) if the Advisory Committee was unanimous in recommending the detention of the 551 Irish prisoners detained without trial; has each of these prisoners been furnished with the decision concerning him and a statement of the grounds thereof, or will they be given any opportunity of rebutting the allegations leading to their continued imprisonment, or of lodging an appeal, or securing a rehearing of their cases?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The order for the detention of James Hannigan was made on the ground that he is of hostile association and a prominent member of an organisation called the Irish Volunteers, or of an organisation called the Citizen Army, which have promoted armed insurrection against His Majesty. The recommendations have been sent to me as from the Committee as a whole. It would be contrary to practice, and would be setting a bad precedent, to state what course individual members of the Committee have taken in their discussions of particular cases. I may say, however, that I have received no dissent from any member with respect to the recommendations. Every prisoner retained in internment is being informed of the decision affecting him. As the decision is merely the confirmation of the original order for his internment, and as each man received at the time a statement of the grounds for his internment, no further statement is necessary. As regards the last part of both questions, I have nothing to add to the answers I have repeatedly given in this House.
    Mr. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all the prisoners whose discharge has been recommended have now been released; and is there
    1048
    anybody now kept in detention except those whom the Advisory Committee, with the approval of the hon Member for Newry, recommended should be so kept?
    Mr. SAMUEL: think that is so. There may be one or two cases in which the recommendations have only just come in, but substantially they have all come in.
    Sir W. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a list of those who are detained in internment?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am proposing to supply a list of those detained in internment. Those who have been released have all gone home.

    MURDER OF CAPTAIN FRYATT.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister at what time the Foreign Office first knew of the danger threatening Captain Fryatt at the hands of the Germans; and when they first consulted the Admiralty in the matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The first intimation received by the Foreign Office of the danger threatening Captain Fryatt was contained in a telegram from His Majesty's Consul-General at Rotterdam, dated 17th July, to the effect that the Dutch paper "Telegraaf," of the same date, stated that Captain Fryatt would be tried by court-martial at Ghent for ramming a German submarine. This telegram was communicated to the Admiralty immediately on its receipt, and the United States Ambassador was at once asked to ascertain by telegraph whether the report was correct. The various communications that have passed with the United States Embassy on the subject have been published in the Press, and show that till the report in the Dutch Press referred to above, the information received was that Captain Fryatt was safe and well, and gave no indication of any danger to him.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that the Foreign Office did consult with the Admiralty right the way through?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid that I cannot give any further information than that contained in the answer.

    VISCOUNT HALDANE.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister if he has yet had an opportunity

    1049
    of consulting Viscount Haldane in regard to the publication of Papers relating to his visit to Berlin in February, 1912; and whether he is now in a position to arrange for the publication?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative. My Noble Friend is anxious that these Papers should be published, but I am afraid there are valid objections to publishing Papers of this sort while the War is in progress. I must, however, repeat that Lord Haldane's visit to Berlin and all his proceedings in connection with it were undertaken at the request, and with the cognisance, of his colleagues.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he stated a short time ago in the House that if Lord Haldane was willing he would take steps to have the Papers published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The public interest must come first.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with Lord Haldane to prevent him making any more indiscreet speeches?
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that it is impossible to publish them now, but that it will be possible when the War is over?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Of course.

    PARIS ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have now notified the representatives of the Allied Governments their decision to give full and complete effect to the policy set forward in the resolutions passed by the Economic Conference of the Allies held at Paris?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As the Conference was held at Paris, it was naturally to the French Government that the communication was made.

    AIR SERVICE.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Prime Minister whether before the holidays he will be in a position to make any statement on the policy of the Air Board?
    Major BAIRD(Representing the Air Board): My Noble Friend proposes, during the recess, to make a Report to the War Committee. Until that Report is in the hands of the Prime Minister, he will not be in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister under what conditions does Lord Wimborne resume duty as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; what will his powers be; and if they will be any advance on the powers which he previously exercised?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The powers exercised by successive Lords Lieutenant from time to time have depended less upon the terms of their appointment than on the arrangements made by the Minister responsible to Parliament for the administration of Ireland. Lord Wimborne pointed out in his evidence before the recent Royal Commission certain respects in which the usefulness of the Office of Lord Lieutenant had been restricted by absence of means of official information and of opportunities for consultation. The state of things described by Lord Wimborne is not constitutionally necessary, and the present Chief Secretary agrees with Lord Wimborne in thinking it is not to the public advantage. It will be modified so as to enable the office of Lord Lieutenant to be discharged with the greatest advantage to the country. At the same time the ultimate authority and responsibility in Irish administration must necessarily remain with the Minister who is answerable to Parliament.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that there are other functions besides that of "gracious hospitality"?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly what I have conveyed in my answer. The reason there was some delay in making this appointment was in order to make this arrangement.
    Mr. HEALY: Will General Sir John Maxwell be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant or the Lord Lieutenant under the control of General Sir John Maxwell?

    RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered

    1051
    the proposal that the Rhodes scholarships hitherto allotted to Germany should now be allotted to those parts of the British Empire to which at present no Rhodes scholarships are allotted; and whether he proposes to make any recommendation on the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is, I understand, being dealt with by a private Bill and I see no reason to make any recommendation with regard to it.

    PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the increasing importance of the question of the treatment of British prisoners in Germany and elsewhere, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Minister whose whole time shall be given to the consideration of this question, and who shall be empowered to represent in this House His Majesty's Government in dealing with it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I entirely share my right hon. and learned Friend's view of the importance of this question, but, after consideration, I doubt if his suggestion is practicable. The Admiralty, War Office, Home Office, and Foreign Office are all necessarily concerned in the matter, and I do not think it would be possible to override their special authority in their respective spheres, while broad questions of general policy affecting prisoners must be and are decided by the Cabinet as a whole. The Government have, however, taken steps to secure such unity and co-ordination of control as is possible by the appointment of an interdepartmental Committee under the chairmanship of my Noble Friend Lord Newton.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint somebody especially to devote himself to answering questions for this Committee in this House? There is Lord Newton in the House of Lords.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I will arrange for that.

    IRISH BUTTER COMMANDEERED.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the Callan Co-operative Agricultural
    1052
    and Dairy Society, Limited, Callan, county Kilkenny, consigned twenty boxes of butter on Easter Saturday to Messrs. J. Leonard and Sons, Little Green Street, Dublin, invoiced at £39, which were commandeered by the military; that the military authorities have only offered £28 in payment for the same; that there was not any danger of depreciation in value, as another parcel dispatched on the same day was not delivered until five weeks later to the consignees, and was then in perfect condition and sold at 1s. 7d. per pound; that the military authorities are treating other creameries in a similar manner; and what steps will he take to prevent this injustice?
    Mr. FORSTER: The inquiries have been made as promised, and my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has caused a letter, conveying the information obtained, to be sent to my hon. Friend. This letter should be now in his hands.

    ALIEN ENEMIES (EXEMPTION FROM INTERNMENT).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of alien enemies in this country who have been exempted from either repatriation or internment by order of the Home Office Advisory Committee; and whether a complete record is kept of each case which comes before the Committee for consideration?
    Mr. SAMUEL: With regard to the number of alien enemies at large, I would refer to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green. All those now at large have been exempted from repatriation or internment on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee or, in a few cases, after the Advisory Committee had finished its inquiry, by the Home Office, which has been guided by the practice of the Committee. The answer to The second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is if a complete record is kept of all cases why he said he could not grant me the Return I asked for, on the ground that it would take up so much time of the police?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I must refer to my previous answer. Perhaps he will give me notice.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PAY).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether immediately before the War a Commission reported in favour of a rise in pay to all ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, whether the allowance recently promised as a war bonus is to be taken as representing the recommendations then made as well as an allowance for the increased cost of living caused by the War; whether officers of the force are included in the allowance now promised by the Government; and, if not, whether, having regard to the responsibilities now thrown upon both officers and men of this force, an adequate response will immediately be made to their expectations of at least fair treatment?
    Mr. DUKE: The Committee of Inquiry of 1914 into the Royal Irish Constabulary reported in May of that year in favour of an increase of pay for head and other constables and second and third-class district inspectors and of an improvement of the initial rates of salary of first-class district inspectors. The Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, passed in August, 1914, gave effect to the increase recommended for head and other constables and sanctioned some improvement of the salaries of first and third-class district inspectors. The substantial war bonus recently granted is additional to these statutory increases, but does not apply to the officers of the force.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now satisfied that he has at his disposal all necessary means for dealing with the Zeppelin attacks; and, if not, whether he is taking adequate measures to obtain them?
    Major BAIRD: I regret that I cannot add anything to the written answer which I gave on the 31st July to my hon. Friend, wherein I stated that the development of the air defences of the country has made great progress, and is proceeding as rapidly as the manufacturing output and the needs of our forces abroad permit.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether that still holds good after last night's raid; whether women
    1054
    and children were killed last night; and whether that is likely to recur under the existing organisation of the defences?
    Major BAIRD: It still holds good, and all the more! The hon. Member must know that these unfortunate things cannot be avoided in time of war. We are greatly improving the defences, and I think the Germans are more aware of it than anybody else.

    LLANELLY STEEL COMPANY (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
    Mr. WARDLE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War under whose authority soldiers are being loaned to the Llanelly Steel Company for civilian work at military rates of pay and under military control; under what let of Parliament this has been san tioned, and whether this is not a breach of the arrangement which has been observed in all previous cases whereby men so lent have been paid full civilian wages and been entirely under civilian control during the time they have been so working?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only received my hon. Friend's notice just a few minutes ago. My attention was only called to this matter by something which appeared in the papers this morning. I am having it thoroughly investigated and will let him know in the course of the day.

    AUSTRALIAN TROOPS.
    Mr. COWAN(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the accelerated rate of wastage involved by a prolonged offensive, it is likely that the Commonwealth Government will have difficulty in keeping the Australian Divisions up to strength?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Commonwealth Government know that His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to the Australian troops at the front being kept up to full strength, and I have every confidence that they will take all possible steps necessary to supply drafts to make up the wastage of their contingents in the War area. The splendid services already rendered by Australia encourage us to hope that every available man will be placed at the disposal of the Empire in order to attain ultimate victory.

    DUBLIN MAILS.
    Mr. BRADYasked the Postmaster General why the mails from England which arrived at Kingstown at 6.50 a.m. on Tuesday, 26th July, last were not delivered in the city of Dublin for more than six hours afterwards?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): When the mail boat is later than 6.15 a.m. in reaching Kingstown special arrangements have been made for the delivery in Dublin of the correspondence which it conveys. On Tuesday, 25th July, the Packet arrived at Kingstown at 6.53, but through some misunderstanding the usual intimation was not given when the boat was sighted from Kingstown. It was assumed in Dublin there must have been some kind of mishap, and the postmen were therefore dispatched on the first delivery at 7 a.m. without waiting for the arrival of the English mail. The correspondence, however, was distributed by the mid-day delivery.
    Mr. BRADY: Was the delivery withheld to await the arrival of English mails coming to Dublin by a route other than the main route?
    Mr. PEASE: I do not understand that that was the reason.

    POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (POLITICAL QUESTIONS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Post master-General whether an appeal to Mr. Hughes, the Australian Prime Minister, to return without delay to London in order that, as a member of the inner and supreme War Council, he may help to lead the Empire, is being circulated by officials amongst the women postal clerks in the west district; whether this appeal has "been drawn up with his knowledge or sanction; whether the circulation of such a document by any of his subordinates amongst the staff of the Post Office is consistent with the rules governing the action of the Civil Service towards political questions; and whether he will ensure the women clerks against any pressure to sign it and cause its withdrawal or prevent its further circulation?
    Mr. PEASE: I was not aware of these facts and I am much obliged to the hon. Member for bringing them to my notice. The circulation of the memorial by an
    1056
    officer in a position of some authority was improper and will be stopped, although I am not sure that it is actually contrary to any written rule. The rank and file of the Post Office, who are equally bound by the Rules of the Civil Service, are allowed considerable licence in matters of this kind, and I do not construe the rules too strictly. I am assured pressure has not been placed upon the women to sign the memorial.

    Property Tax (Irish Farms).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether farmers in Ireland who have purchased their farms under the Land Purchase Acts are liable to Property Tax under Schedule A and also Income Tax under Schedules B or D; and, if so, whether, in regard to the collection of these taxes, account will be taken of the difficulty that small farmers find in making both ends meet?
    Mr. McKENNA: Farmers who own their land, whether in Ireland or in other parts of the United Kingdom, are liable to Income Tax under Schedule A, as well as under Schedule B or D, but are entitled to claim relief so as to limit the charge under Schedules A and B to the duty on the actual profits of the year.

    Cider Duty.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a decrease of 70 per cent, in the sale of cider since the imposition of the Cider Tax, and that this failure to sell will lead to such a congestion of storage that it will be practically impossible to store the cider that should be the product of the coming apple crop; and whether he will consider a modification of the Cider Duty?
    Mr. McKENNA: No representations to the effect described in the question have been received by me. I think it would be premature to consider a modification of the duty at the present time.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received representations on this point at the Treasury?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know what representations have been received at the Treasury, but no representations of the facts described in the question have been received. No doubt some have been received, but they have not reached me.

    Civil Service Guilds (Representatives).
    Mr. HODGEasked the Prime Minister whether any objection is taken to a Civil servant being an official representative of a Civil Service guild, which exists solely for obtaining discounts from traders for Civil servants, active and retired, and their widows?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No objection would be taken if, in the opinion of the head of the Department, participation in the business of the guild would be consistent with the proper performance of the officer's official duties.

    Scottish Universities (Examinations).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Bridge-ton Division of Glasgow for a humble Address to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold his assent from the Ordinance dealing with preliminary examinations at the Scottish universities; whether he is aware that this Ordinance raises important questions concerning the relations between the universities and the schools in Scotland, and that there are differences of opinion with regard to its terms and the propriety of proceeding with a matter of such importance at the present time; and whether he can afford facilities for discussing this Motion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If there is a general desire for such a discussion, I will see if it can be arranged.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Home Secretary if discontent exists amongst the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police with their treatment in the matter of salary; whether several meetings of the men have been held and that dangerous results may arise both to life and to property through ignoring the men's grievances; whether he will consider that the time has now arrived for a review of the salary and cost of living of these men as compared with the salary and cost of living in 1884; and, if not, why the Government should now take from the ratepayers of Dublin, year 1916–17, £13,510 per year more than in 1884, though the cost of the Dublin Metropolitan Police has been reduced during the same period by £12,566 per year?
    Mr. DUKE: It is true that representations; have been made by members of the
    1058
    Dublin Metropolitan Police that certain of the existing rates of pay are insufficient. Meetings of some of the Men have taken place, but I have no reason to suppose that the Dublin Metropolitan Police will behave otherwise than with the discipline and loyalty to duty which they have always shown. Since my appointment I have devoted a good deal of time to the matter to which the question relates, and I intend to continue my investigations in Dublin.
    Mr. NUGENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that, pending his inquiry into the rate of pay of the Dublin Police, these men are not irritated by notices posted up in the barracks threatening them with dismissal if they bring their grievances before the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who represents the whole of the citizens by whom the rate is paid?
    Mr. DUKE: My hon. Friend will remember that in a disciplined force it is impossible to observe the same course of conduct which might be proper outside discipline for those in ordinary employment, but I can promise him that no. irritation will be used towards members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. NUGENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this notice is withdrawn pending his inquiry into the whole of the conditions under which the Dublin Metropolitan Police are at present working?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot assume that the notice which was published, and to which nay hon. Friend refers, was an improper notice. If a notice was in my judgment improper and inconsistent with the treatment to which the police are entitled, I should take care that the publication of if was discontinued.
    Mr. NUGENT: Are we to understand that the fact of the police putting their conditions before the Lord Mayor of Dublin is an improper and illegal thing for them to do?
    Mr. DUKE: If my hon. Friend asks me whether I think it is inconsistent with discipline that representations should be made to outside authorities which have not been made to those who have the government of the police, I am bound to tell him that I think it is.
    Mr. NUGENTrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions should be put down.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. GWYNNE: I would like to ask the indulgence of the House to make a short personal statement. Yesterday, during Question Time, I asked some questions in regard to a certain controlled firm under the Munitions Department, called Haigh, Grüban and Company. At the end of questions the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) made a personal explanation as regards his interest in that firm, in which he took exception to the fact that I had been discourteous in not giving him notice of my intention to raise the question. I then said that the reason why I had not given him notice was that the question had been raised in the House last week and I was told then that, although the question referred to a certain naturalised German called Gruban, the report also referred to a Member or Members of this House who were interested in the firm, and I thought it was in the public interest that if a Member of this House was interested in a controlled firm about which there had been a report which was not satisfactory, it was right to bring the matter out. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sure without knowing what had taken place, said:
"This shows that extreme unfairness may occur by an hon. Member putting down questions relating to one of his colleagues in the House without knowing what are the facts."ߞ[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1916, col. 850.]
All I wish to say is thisߞthat if Mr. Deputy-Speaker had been aware of what took place in this House he would not charge me with having made accusations against a colleague without knowing the facts. In point of fact, I made no charge against a colleague at all. The question was whether any Member of this House was connected with the firm of Haigh, Grüban, and Company, Limited, a controlled munition firm. That was the only question. I think, bearing in mind what took place in this House last week, that the late Sir A. Markham had raised the question several times and had elicited from the Front Bench, both from the Home Secretary and the Minister of Munitions, that this firm was a controlled firm, and that they had sent down a solicitor to investigate into this transaction with the Government. Sir A. Markham put down a further question last Thursday, to ask the Home Secretary whether he would lay on the Table the Report of the Committee in connection with this firm. The question was not put at Question Time, but it appeared in the written replies in
1060
the OFFICIAL REPORT on 3rd August. The Home Secretary said:
The Reports made by the Advisory Committee are of a confidential character, ants it they were written with a view to possible publication would lose a great part of their value. Further, tir.fi Report in particular affects very closely the interest of persons other than Mr. Gruban."ߞ[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1916, col.526, Vol. LXXXV.]
As a result of that statement it was stated freely in the House that the persons referred to in the reports were Members of this House. It seemed to me then, and it does now, that merely because a man who is int3rested in a firm winch is doing business with the Government is a Member of this House that should not debar any hon. Members from asking a question which they would ordinarily have asked. Therefore, I put the question without any intention to bring anything unpleasant against a colleague. I should have done it whether he had been a Member of this House or not. I put a straightforward question, whether or not a Member of this House was a member of that firm. The question was passed by Mr. Speaker, and put in the ordinary way. After what the hon. Member said last night, that he is connected with that firm, I shall do him the courtesy of giving him notice if I raise any further question in regard to it.
Mr. BOOTH: The late Sir Arthur Markham was approached, and he did me the courtesy of seeing me. I placed him in possession of the facts and allowed him to read any documents. There is nothing that need be concealed from any hon. Member. If the hon. Member (Mr. Gwynne) will come now I will tell him everything about it from beginning to end. It was not the first question he asked, but a second question, which conveyed an imputation which is not true. I have no objection to this question. I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising the point. This is one of the incidents in my life of which I am proud, that I have rescued this firm and rescued the staff from German domination. If the hon. Member will come and help me I will welcome his assistance, as I did the assistance of Sir A. Markham. I have to-day received a telegram from the staff, which I should like to read:
"Your staff at Haigh's (Oldham) have to strongly resent imputation contained in Gwynne's question in the House yesterday They tender their sympathy and loyal support in your campaign."
This is the staff who have teen keeping records, who have been interviewed by the Government, and who know full well

1061
the part that I have taken. I do not know why the hon. Member has raised this matter again to-day. I told the House yesterday that an action has been brought against me in which the charge is the exact opposite to what the hon. Member suggests. I am charged with being this man's implacable enemy even at the time when the Home Office looked favourably on him. These proceedings have been taken against me, and I have to answer them. How, then, can I keep explaining in this House when I am under legal advice and I have to face the Law Courts? I am quite prepared to meet this German, and all the Germans in the country, and when I have finished with them I am quite prepared to take on the hon. Member.

ADJOURNMENT.
Mr. BILLING: I rise to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter o£ urgent public importance, namely, "to call attention—hon. Members will not sneer when they know the subject of my Motion—the death of a woman and children killed in the enemy air raid last night, and to the still inadequate state of our air defences."
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for East Herts asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "to call attention to the death of a woman and children killed in the enemy air raid last night, and to the still inadequate state of our air defences." Has the hon. Member the leave of the House? Nobody rises.
Mr. BILLING: I claim a Division on this. Put it to the House, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. Lloyd George to move the Motion standing in his name.
Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. Is it in order for me to request the Chair to put this matter to the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member had the support of more than three Members.
Mr. BILLING: I counted four, Sir.
An HON. MEMBER: Five.
Mr. SPEAKER: Then I will give him one more, and call it six. If the hon.
1062
Member will consult the Standing Orders he will see that if fewer than forty Members, and not less than ten, rise in their places the House can go to a Division to determine whether such Motion shall be made. The numbers did not enable him to comply with that rule.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Special Commissions (Dardanelles and Mesopotamia) Bill, with an Amendment;
Amendments to—
River Glen Bill [Lords],
Yeadon Water Bill [[Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to provide for the Registration of Firms and Persons carrying on Business under Business Names." [Registration of Business Names Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer further powers upon the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company; and for other purposes." [Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords.]
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir E. CARSON: I desire to ask whoever is in charge of the House what is the business that the Government intend to take to-night after eleven o'clock? As I understand by the Standing Order, as this is an allotted day for Supply, you cannot enter upon any of this business until after eleven o'clock to-night. I think it is very unfortunate that we have this kind of Motion made every day, and I will tell the House why. It has become a growing habit of the Government to leave important business to a time near the Adjournment in the hope of slipping it through, with the result that many Bills are going through without proper discussion. There is one Bill upon the Paper which the Prime Minister said yesterday would be taken, and that is the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill. I do not say that I am opposed to that Bill, but the Bill requires a very considerable amount of discussion. It raises very novel principles, and gives very new powers. In addition to that, the Bill involves, or will involve, a whole statement from the Government and a whole consideration of what is going to be done out of public funds for the restoration of Dublin after the rebellion. We have never had a statement in the House yet upon that subject, and, save what we can gather from people who are in the know, we know little or nothing of what are the intentions of the Government as regards either compensation for property or compensation for persons. In addition to that, I had put into my hands just before I came in a petition which has been presented to this House signed by a number of the most influential men in Dublin from the business point of view—there is nothing political about it—who are concerned, protesting against Clauses in this Bill. I think all of them will come under the Bill. It may be a good Bill or a bad one. It
  1082
  may be a good thing to confer upon the Corporation of Dublin or any other corporation the right to say to a man: "You cannot rebuild your house as it was before, you must spend a great deal more or you-must spend less upon it by building in this way, or that way, or the other." These are matters which must be discussed at the proper time, and it is not fair to ask us to come down at eleven o'clock at night and commence this discussion. I do not know whether that is one of the Bills which are going to be taken to-night. But there are other Bills. There is another Bill arising out of the rebellion which was introduced the other day by the Attorney-General for Ireland. There is a Clause in it to which I take considerable exception, and which requires considerable discussion. The truth is that these are inconvenient Bills, and the method of the Government is to leave them over till we are near the Adjournment and then cram them all in as late as possible at night when there will be no one here and slip them through, and I think it is high time we put an end to that kind of proceeding. All the important business, in fact, is left to the end of the Session. The Expiration of Parliament, the Registration Bill—all this kind of matters are left to the end of the Session in the hope that everyone will have gone away. I hope Members will come back and stay here, and I hope they will see that this is not the method which is going to operate in this House. Since the War commenced we have all got so slack that the Government think they can do anything they like, and I hope a promise will be given that none of these Bills objected to will be taken to-night. There is no reason in the world why we should not sit on Friday and do our business in the daytime. We could commence at ten or half-past ten. But I enter a protest, at all events for myself and others who act with me, against this day after clay repealing the Orders of this House with a view to taking important business after eleven o'clock. If these Bills are to be gone on with, I shall ask the House to divide against this Motion.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think it is particularly unfortunate that the Government should have made this Motion on an allotted day. The spirit of the Standing Order is undoubtedly violated. The Standing Order is:
  "On a day so allotted no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken before eleven o'clock."

  1083
  That is to say, if Scottish Members, whose discussion of Supply we are always longing to listen to, should, for any reason connected with economy of time, decide to break off their discussion, say, at seven o'clock or eight, the whole House would collapse. It was to enable Supply to be got through that the rule was drafted in that form. Now what is to happen? If these Scottish Members should, for any reason, not show their usual exuberance and eloquence, Members of the Government will be whipping them to talk in order that eleven o'clock may be reached, and that we may not get the usual surcease from our labours which we generally expect upon a Scottish day. The spirit of the rule is absolutely violated. In what respect and for what Bill is it violated? I would submit to you, Sir, that you would not allow a Bill of this kind to be brought in by any private Member. It is a Bill to enable without notice—because there has been no "Gazette" notice and there has been no newspaper notice—the Dublin Corporation to acquire land compulsorily and to start as bankers in the city of Dublin. That is a tremendous Bill to bring in without notice. It is a Bill to enable them to make by-laws dealing even with the material to be employed in connection with these renewed works, and that in respect of shopkeepers whose businesses have already been destroyed by this rebellion, and you are to delay, at the supposed instance of the corporation, still further the getting on with these buildings. I have carefully examined the records of the corporation, and I can find no authority whatever in that body for the Bill which the Government is now bringing in. The corporation asked for a Grant. They have bean given a loan. The corporation very properly said, "We do not want to administer this Grant ourselves." They say, "We will be content with two members upon it, and let the Government appoint three." The Government has entirely upset the Corporation Bill and has given it something which nobody asked for. As you have deprived us of our own Parliament, and as we see no prospect of that Parliament being again set on its legs, the least we might have is that the Orders of the London Parliament shall be fairly administered in our regard.
  There is not a city in the United Kingdom which would be treated, as regards a private Bill, as the city of Dublin has
  1084
  been treated. Here you have a number of shopkeepers almost every one of whom has appealed to the Government to be allowed to get on with their buildings. Which of them is allowed to get on with the building? The only man for whom the corporation has made an exemption is a member of the corporation itself. He is allowed to get on with his buildings, but all the rest of the shopkeepers are to be subjected to this extraordinary Bill, which we hope to debate later on in the afternoon. Their shops may be taken, their buildings may be taken, there is not a plan lodged, there is not an advertisement showing what land is to be taken, and that is to be discussed after eleven o'clock at night on an allotted day hitherto sacred to Supply, and you wonder why the Irish are discontented with the way in which they are governed. One of the things that I deprecate more than anything in connection with this business is the attempt to sacrifice these shopkeepers in the interests of another Bill in which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) is interested. I was quite prepared to give a candid consideration to the Time Bill if the Daylight Saving Act had not been introduced and passed, but I notice the disappearance from the Order Paper of a notice of opposition in order to induce the Government to give this Bill a hearing late at night at the instance of a small section of Irish Members. I do not say there are not some Irish Members who are greatly attached to the Corporation of Dublin, and that their views are not entitled to weight, but let them get that weight and consideration at three o'clock in the afternoon instead of three o'clock in the morning. If you want to oblige the Irish Members, I am sure we shall all be very happy if the Government will place next Friday at our disposal, but put us out of our pain one way or the other, and put the shopkeepers of Dublin out of their pain. The summer is passing, and they want to get on with their buildings. The workmen are tied up. Give us Friday next for this Bill and let us thrash it out. I am quite willing for the Government to make concessions upon it. I do not want to appear to oppose the Corporation of Dublin, many of whose members are my friends, in taking up a hostile attitude. If they can show any merits for the Bill, and if there is any demand for it in Dublin, let us have Friday for its discussion by all means. But a Bill of this im-

  1085
  portance to our capital should not be debated after eleven o'clock at night, when we are all tired.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not desire to enter into the merits of the Bill which we are asked to discuss after eleven o'clock at night. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy), I have no doubt, has enlarged upon it with his usual eloquence and accuracy. I wish to direct the attention of the House to the extraordinary procedure which we are now called upon to adopt. The House is to-day giving itself over to the contemplation of Scottish business, and when the Prime Minister announced that time would be given for the Scottish Estimates, after consultation with the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Younger), he said it would all be over before half-past eight.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I said I hoped it would be. The Prime Minister said nothing about it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think the hon. Gentleman is somewhat astray in his recollection. At any rate, the Prime Minister seemed to be absolutely certain, after it had been confirmed by the authority of the hon. Gentleman, whom he regards now as the authentic voice of Scotland. But for the first time we heard yesterday that, in spite of the fact that the Scottish Estimates were only to take part of the Sitting, this Dublin Reconstruction Bill was to be taken. The Prime Minister at that time was apparently unaware that no business could be taken till after eleven o'clock, and he then assured me he would be very glad if the Scottish Estimates were over as soon as possible—a decision which he subsequently modified. But now we are in this extraordinary position, that the Government is beseeching Scottish Members to keep the Debate going.
  Mr. HEALY: Are you referring to the Chief Whip?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not desire to be personal. I know, of course, that the Chief Whip naturally desires all the grievances of Scotland to be ventilated, but we have this extraordinary situation, that the Government is relying upon the well-known devotion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) and myself to them to keep business going until eleven o'clock. This is a situation from which the Government by some means should be rescued, and the expedient which has been suggested by the
  1086
  hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) is that this important business, which, after all, does not concern Dublin alone, but is a matter in which the British taxpayer is concerned, should not be taken after eleven o'clock, when the people outside will not have an opportunity of reading what has been done. We should have this taken on a Friday, when Members can come and bring a fresh mind to bear upon the subject, and also at a time when the report can appear in the Press of the following day so that everyone in this country, as well as the people of Dublin, may be made fully aware of the arrangements which are being made for the rebuilding of Dublin.
  Mr. CLANCY: For the second time the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) has discussed a Bill which is not yet before the House, and it is very difficult to answer him without going into the Bill itself, and I do not imagine you, Sir, will allow me to do that. I resent altogether the idea that the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to propagate on every occasion on which he speaks on this subject that those who are supporting the Bill in this House have any idea whatever of having it discussed in anything but the fullest manner. We are perfectly convinced that the more closely, publicly, and critically it is examined the better it will appear, and the better Bill it will be for the citizens of Dublin, and therefore, instead, as might be imagined from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, of opposing the idea that this Bill ought to be taken on Friday, I am heartily in favour of that being done, and the only reason why I agree that it should be taken to-night instead is that I have knowledge of the fact that the new Chief Secretary for Ireland desired himself to proceed with it to-night in consequence of having to go to-morrow morning to Ireland to be sworn into his Office, and, of course, if he does that, he cannot be here on Friday, and rather than have it postponed, I would prefer it to be taken to-night. But if the Chief Secretary says that he is willing to take it on Friday, and postpone his visit to Dublin until after the Bill is disposed of on Second Reading, no one would be more delighted with that than myself and my colleagues. We have nothing whatever to fear. We should be able, I am perfectly certain, to show that there is nothing in this Bill which any honest man ought not to support. Therefore, if the right hon.

  1087
  Gentleman feels free to alter his arrangement and to stay here for Friday, I should be very glad to adopt that arrangement, and I hope that he will adopt it.
  Mr. HEALY: As a matter of personal explanation, if my suggestion in any way inconveniences the Chief Secretary, I shall be most happy to waive it as a first concession to him on his assumption of office.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I would have expected that my hon. and learned Friend would give me to-day the kindness and courtesy which I have always received from him. I must put myself on the indulgence of the House in regard to this matter. The Prime Minister, when I was appointed Chief Secretary, stated it was understood that the most of my time, at any rate, would be spent in Ireland. There are obvious reasons why it is desirable that the new Chief Secretary should be in Dublin as soon as he can, and I had intended to be in Dublin as soon as the train and the boat would take me there, after I had taken my seat again in this House. Arrangements were made by which this Bill was put down to-night, and I hoped that it would be taken in reasonable time. My own view is that I ought to go to Dublin to-morrow morning. To postpone my going for two days in succession would delay the duties of Chief Secretary which ought to be perforated. So I do not think that I ought voluntarily to be absent from Dublin on Friday, and that therefore I should go to-morrow. If those who are more directly interested in this Bill can fix a day next week, I will take care that I am here to move the Second Reading of the Bill, as I am desired to do, because it is a Bill which, upon my understanding, is presented to the House in pursuance of the arrangement made in Dublin when the Prime Minister was there. That is my view of the situation, and, of course, an obligation incurred in those circumstances must be; performed. I am very desirous of meeting the convenience of the opponents of the Bill. I think that it is in the highest degree important, in the interests of Dublin, that there should be an amicable arrangement on this Bill, and I think that the powers that the corporation shall get ought to be the powers which would be regarded by most reasonable people as the wise powers for
  1088
  the important purposes involved. I do hope, if it is found possible, that the Bill should be taken to-night. So far as I am concerned, I am quite ready to stay here as long as is necessary, provided that I can catch the boat, so that we may deal fully with this Bill. If it is not taken to-night, I hope that it will be taken, having regard to the circumstances in which the Bill is introduced and the obligation which has been incurred, some day next week, when, at any rate, the principle involved can be disposed of.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very good one, namely, that we should take the Bill some day next week. There is not any very violent hurry about the Bill this evening. Every Member of this House knows that if we begin at eleven o'clock on a Bill of this sort, as to which there are no fewer than six notices of rejection on the Paper, we should be here until three or four o'clock in the morning. The attendance at the House is very small at any time. During the last few weeks the Division lists show about seventy on one side and thirty on the other, and after twelve o'clock there are still fewer; so I hope that the Government will accede to the proposal to take the Bill next week. In case that is done, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would wish not to proceed with this Motion? My right hon. and learned Friend asked what business was to be taken, and we have not yet had an answer to that.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): It was only intended to take to-night the three Bills, bearing on Irish questions. They have been arranged for the convenience of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. But it is obvious that it is better, in the interests of this Bill, which is highly controversial, that you should not have an additional element of controversy introduced. The Government are prepared to accept the suggestion put forward that the Bills should be discussed next week. In those circumstances there is no advantage in taking this time for Government business, and therefore I do not propose to press the Motion.
  Mr. CLANCY: On what day next week will this Bill be taken?
  Mr. HEALY: If the Chief Secretary, when he is in Dublin, could manage to

  1089
  confer with those who are interested in this Bill, the points at is3tie might be altogether settled, and the House might be spared a discussion. I therefore suggest that the Bill should be taken as late next week as possible. I certainly will not offer any factious opposition to any Bill which he states is agreed to in Dublin.
  Mr. DUKE: In answer to my hon. and learned Friend, one of the objects of my anxiety to get to Dublin is to deal first hand with matters of this kind, and I had it in view to get into, personal communication with those concerned on one side or another with this Bill which contains at present some controversial matters.
  Mr. HEALY: What day, then?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not before Wednesday.
  Mr. CLANCY: Will it be the first Order of the Day?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it possible to give that undertaking now.
  Mr. CLANCY: Because the same difficulty will arise then, if it is postponed until the evening, and similar complaints will be made that it is being pushed through, and the whole case will not be presented to the House.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have some hope that as a result of the visit of the Chief Secretary, perhaps this Bill might cease to be controversial. If it still remains controversial, we shall have to do our best to arrange to get it brought on fairly early, and not to have it postponed until eleven o'clock.
  Mr. BRADY: May I understand that the other Bill, the small one, No. 6 on the Paper, will be taken next week also?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that I have already given an undertaking that it shall not be taken to-night.
  Mr. HOGGE: Seeing that so much time has now been given to other parties, I suppose that the Government will not desire to take all the Scottish Votes to-day. We have now lost three-quarters of an hour in discussing other Votes. Will my right hon. Friend see that education is kept over until afterwards, and that we shall get time on another day?
  Mr. CLANCY: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the Irish Bill will not be taken before eleven o'clock?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I expressed the hope that it would not be taken as late as eleven o'clock. I could not give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that it would be the first Order, but I hope that it will be taken fairly early in the evening, certainly not as late as eleven.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that it will not be taken on an evening on which the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am still of opinion if the discussion ceases to be controversial that, in that case, it could be taken even then, if there are only just a few points to be cleared up.
  Mr. BRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the remaining stages of No. 6 Bill shall be taken on the day on which the other Bill is taken next week, or on some day next week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is obviously for the convenience of Members that these Bills should be taken on the same evening. I do not move the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY.— [13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.— [13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    1. "That a sum not exceeding £43,959, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including certain Grants-in-Aid." [NOTE. —£25,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am fortunate in being the first Scottish Member on a Scottish day in the House of Commons to catch your eye, because I desire to express on

    1091
    behalf of all my Scottish colleagues our delight at seeing my right hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary for War and the present Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Tennant) in his place in control of the Scottish Estimates. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will bring a deep and sympathetic interest to bear on all Scottish problems. He has Scottish instincts and Scottish traditions, and I feel certain, in view of my own personal experience of his work in the War Office for two hard years, that at the end of two hard years of work in Scotland he will leave his native country and mine a better country than he found it.
    Many problems will be raised in the course of this Debate, but I think that no problem has got the same urgency or importance as the land problem. I speak more particularly for the North of Scotland. In many places in that part of Scotland not to touch the land is not to touch life. It is the main industry of the North of Scotland. Almost every single person in the North of Scotland is connected with it directly or indirectly. I think, further, that important as it is at the present moment, it will be infinitely more important after the end of this War. I have here the Report of the Land Court of Scotland, and I would like to read one quotation which I am glad to think refers to my own Constituency, and particularly to the Island of Lewis, in connection with the question of land settlement in Scotland. I will read one short paragraph:
    "The importance of such settlements from the national point of view may be illustrated by a brief statement, showing how the settlers of Aignish have responded to the call for men since the commencement of the War. From the hook 'Loyal Lewis," containing a 'Roll of Honour' for each township in Lewis, recently published, we find on examination of the names that the thirty-two holdings in Aignish have contributed fifty-three men for the defence of King and country, distributed among the various branches of the Services."
    I think that what is true of that little hamlet in the Island of Lewis is largely true of every village of the North of Feet-land, and those facts were true long before we heard of any Military Service Act. From the same Report one is able to judge of the work which is being done in connection with the land problem in the North of Scotland. I frankly confess that this Report is largely a story of work undone, well told. Those of us who have taken an interest in the question knew the difficulties. Two distinct bodies were created under the Small Landholders Act —the Land Court and the Board of Agriculture, In estimating the success of
    1092
    either, you have to remember that the Land Court had its principles and its groundwork long established by the Crofters Commission, while the Board of Agriculture was a new body with no established principle or groundwork and with much leeway to make up. It had, moreover, to endure a good deal of criticism, many of its critics believing that, handicapped as it was, it would prove incapable of performing its duties. When one looks at the Report one is bound to confess that this has been the case. I have already said how necessary it is to have people settled on the land in Scotland, yet we find in this Report that, particularly in the last year, the Board of Agriculture has seen its way to suggest to the Land Court to dismiss schemes which were prepared for the furtherance of the question of dealing with the land. I cannot compute, offhand, how many acres were thus dismissed from the various schedules; but this has got to be said for the Board of Agriculture, that since the War began it has been handicapped to a tremendous extent by the fact that the £200,000 which had been allocated to it under the Act has been taken from it, and you find scheme after scheme in the course of operation has now been finally given its quietus, because of the fact, as we are told, that no money is forthcoming to spend for the purposes of this Act. No country in the United Kingdom has done so much for this War as Scotland has done. It is a curious fact, when looking through the statistics, particularly in regard to the North of Scotland, that the main support there of the British Army and the British Empire came from those very small landholders.
    And we were told, and are being told anew, so far as I know, that we are not to get this £200,000 with which to settle people on the land. It is curious that there has been no reduction so far as I know with regard to the Grant for agriculture in Ireland, and. quite recently, we find a scheme put forward at the suggestion of what is called the Verney Committee to give £2,000,000 for the settlement of soldiers in England, yet we who have long been alive to the importance of settling people on the land in Scotland have been deprived of this miserable £200,000. The first proposal I make to my right hon. Friend is that he will see to it —and I am perfectly certain he will have the support of every single Scottish Member—that we are not any longer to be

    1093
    deprived of a sum which is legitimately ours, and also that we shall have all the arrears paid to us, so that we may give effect to the proposals of the Act. The next proposal which I know will be discussed, and which bears directly upon the Vote of the Board of Agriculture, is the question of afforestation. I have the honour to belong to the Advisory Committee on Forestry in Scotland, and quite recently, and even previously, but quite recently particularly, I have taken deep interest in this question of afforestation, and I may frankly tell the House that I have always, openly, been opposed to any scheme of afforestation which did not carry along with it the question of small holdings as a complement. I rarely, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, met any people who were interested in the question of afforestation as afforestation, but I do sincerely believe now that if my right hon. Friend would undertake to consider the proposal first of all for small land holdings, plus afforestation, as the complement to small holdings, he will not find a single dissenting voice among the Scottish Members. All of us know that on a Scottish croft it is exceedingly difficult to make both ends meet. The people there are deeply attached to their crofts, which have belonged to their fathers and grandfathers, which have belonged to their families generation after generation, and it is extremely difficult, with these people, however poor their circumstances, to induce them to leave the crofts. It is the old story, give a man secure possession of a rock and he will turn it into a garden. You may see from time to time in Scotland, on bleak pieces of moorland, carefully cultivated green patches, which are due to the devoted attachment of those people to the soil of their country, and this is the class on which this country has been greatly dependent during the whole course of this War.
    Recently there was a scheme adumbrated by friends in Scotland, and particularly by Dr. Mackay, with whom there were associated landlords, military officers, and men of all shades of opinion. They all combined to foster and to make progress with a scheme by means of which disabled soldiers may be trained at a certain centre where are the Highland regiments, in order to enable them, after they have received such training, to make the best possible use of the land. I wish to impress, and I am sure my hon. Friends on
    1094
    all sides of the House will desire to impress on my right hon. Friend, that not only must they give those who are already equipped and ready to take a piece of land and work it, an opportunity of going back to the land, with the full co-operation of all parties, but he must particularly in the case of wounded and disabled soldiers, who are still able to work, do everything he can in favour of this scheme of training which has been adumbrated. We never had a better chance or opportunity of solving the land problem in Scotland—a problem which we have always with us. Everybody, both landlord and tenant, and would-be landlords and would-be tenants, is sincerely desirous at the present moment of solving this problem. We have gone a long way towards solving it, and I think that with the hearty co-operation of all parties, under the guidance, good will, and, if I may say so, affection, of my right hon. Friend, we might probably solve the problem now. I need not add anything more, save again to impress upon my right hon. Friend the points to which I have drawn his attention; and I trust that my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House will give their support to the suggestions which I have made.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I join very cordially in offering from hon. Members on this side of the House their congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, who is now in his place. I have often said that the man who becomes Secretary for Scotland finds, if he did not know it before, that he has become a Jack-of-all-Trades. That is the unfortunate position of every Secretary for Scotland. Every other Minister has one particular occupation; the Secretary for Scotland has a very great variety. He will find it very difficult to overtake all the duties which fall to his office, but he will have the satisfaction, I am sure, of the assistance of hon. Members in this House in carrying out his difficult duties. I have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend opposite, and I agree with everything he has said, except on one question. I hope, with him, that some day or other the Grant for small holdings will be restored, and that the country will be well enough off to pay up arrears. I rather gather that the hon. Gentleman deplores the fact that this money is not being paid now, and the necessity that has been caused of dropping the constitution of small holdings at the present moment; but this has been forced

    1095
    upon the Board of Agriculture as a war measure by the economic conditions of the times. The increase in the cost of buildings, in the cost of fencing, drainage, road making, and anything of that kind, is enormous, making it perfectly impossible for small landholders, if we imposed upon them the payment of any kind of annuity, to accept such a burden. A great many of the holdings which have been constituted have not been economic, according to the sense of that word, and to attempt to constitute them now would, I think, not only be futile, but would be fatal, both in the interests of those who are placed on the holdings and equally in the interest of the British taxpayer. That is the only exception I can find to what the hon. Gentleman stated, and with that reservation I think I practically agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman has said. I do not want to be too critical in saying anything about the Board of Agriculture just now, and we cannot speak of that body without referring to the Land Court, nor can we speak of the Land Court without associating with it the Board of Agriculture. In regard to the proceedings during 1915 in the formation of small holdings, we have correspondence going deeply into the work of the landlords in regard to the scheme which the Board of Agriculture laid before them.
    There is evidence of a great deal of work by the Board of Agriculture. No one can complain that they have not performed their duties with assiduity. They have done their best in difficult circumstances, and, with an extremely difficult Act to work, to carry out the duties imposed upon them. Some of the schemes do not seem to have been altogether suitable. I have never believed, and I do not believe now, that the present Landholders Act should have been applied to the South of Scotland. The conditions in the South are very different from those in the North. I thought that the gravest difficulties would arise in the South, and that practically the Act would break down. I do not think anybody in the South will deny that it has broken down there. I am not at all surprised—I do not think anybody is—that hon. Members opposite have a desire to consider this matter de novo—to, if possible, take the actual facts with which we have to deal, and to have some land settlement which will be more
    1096
    economical and work more successfully. I am sure if they can place before those who sit with me any reasonable or fair suggestions which are likely to be of advantage to be successful, we are quite willing to consider them carefully and deal with them, I hope honestly and generously, and to see our way out of this wretched impasse if we possibly can. Everybody who says a word about the land system thinks that the Act as it stands will not do, and that it is desirable, if at all possible, to have some alteration. I do not want to deal critically with the suitability of the schemes which have been submitted. I notice there is a complaint of small schemes being issued on the ground that they are expensive and do not add many landholders. I think it would be desirable to have large colonies as far as possible planned, and in that way you would get the whole advantage of the system, and it would also be more economical. We had no discussion of these Estimates last year. I think we expressly avoided any Debate last year on the Board of Agriculture or land. We did not want to raise old controversies and we thought the safest way was to hold our tongues. The present Financial Secretary asked whether we would wish a discussion and we decided we would not ask for it. We have now, therefore, knowledge which we did not possess last year of the actual position with regard to the Lindean case decision. The House of Lords has made it perfectly clear that our views were correct. It is perfectly fair that compensation should be paid and that is nothing more than the promise which Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman gave. But that some better means should be found of dealing with these matters is equally true. In the Lowlands of Scotland we should try and purchase the land and deal with it in that way. If some people want to lease it, let them do so; and if people want to buy, let them buy. We should all try to get rid of difficulties which, if we go on with the system on a large scale in the future, will unquestionably retard matters. I notice that the Board refer to the advance in the cost of material, building, fencing and so forth, with the view of emphasising the situation, and, although they do not say so in so many words, indicate that it is their desire to rest on their oars in the meantime.
    In dealing with some of these schemes the Board have been very critical. For

    1097
    instance, they point out cases in which the land is unsuitable for small holdings while adjoining land is suitable, and that land of inferior quality is sometimes taken. All that may be very true, and it shows the difficulty which confronts the Board in trying to discover schemes and in putting them forward. I am not disposed to lay too much blame on them, and, although they have made mistakes, they have certainly done their best under the circumstances in which they are placed. The dispute of long standing as to whether or not the establishment of small holdings depreciates or appreciates the value of an estate has, I think, been practically settled by the experience at Ballancrief, where a farm was offered for sale, and the case of two farms in East Lothian, near Drem. There is the question, for instance, as to whether small holdings are satisfactorily farmed, and difficulties may arise from the fact that the right class of tenant has not been chosen. Some most extraordinary tenants have been chosen, and not the kind which Parliament thought would be settled on these holdings. There is a case of a contractor who has received a holding for himself and one for a son and another for a daughter. There are cases of market gardeners, and one man with a distillery—there is no brewer yet—and there is a case of an aerated water manufacturer, and a jeweller. Those are not the class of people for whom those holdings were intended.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): May I ask where the hon. Baronet obtains the particulars as to the status of various persons on the land?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I think those particulars were given to me by the Land Federation of Scotland in Edinburgh.
    Mr. HOGGE: They are all in "Who's Who."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I give those instances to emphasise the fact that the class of person whom we expected to settle on these holdings do not come forward. I do not blame the Board for selecting the best class of tenant and substantial people who will be able to pay the rent, but those are not the class of people who were expected to settle in the South.
    Mr. W. YOUNG: There are over 5,000 cases.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: An extraordinary number have been found to be unsuitable.
    1098
    Some day or other, when there is more time at the Board of Agriculture—and I am sure they are overworked now—we ought to have a Return of these holdings, the class of tenants, the fertility of the soil, and particulars of that kind, which would enable us to know where we are. I confess we have really no accurate information at present. That is why I do not want to make any charges or be too critical. I rather want to find excuses for the Board than to make any complaint of them. I quite sympathise with them in the difficulties they have to deal with. It is all the better to point out the difficulties, to emphasise the position in which the land question is in Scotland, and the desirability of, if at all possible, mending it and improving it. I am a little sorry that there has not been more go on the part of the Board of Agriculture in pushing the kelp industry. We had a discussion in the House, and there was mention of certain experiments and of inquiries being made by a professor. I am sure that very valuable work could be done in the way of obtaining potash and iodine from kelp if only more vigorous efforts were made to push the industry. Although there is a very interesting part of the Report which deals with that, and although I see that the matter is still having the assistance, to a certain extent, of the Board of Agriculture, I should be very glad to think they were a little more active in the matter, a little more pushful and a little more venturesome in the way of giving money to assist the increase and the extension of that particular industry, which is of immense importance where it is in operation, and which may be largely extended with great public advantage. Similarly, I am glad to see they are taking steps to improve, if at all possible, the production of dyes. One of the most important matters which I hope they will deal with and always keep in view is the question of forestry. I know at the present moment it is impossible to do anything in the way of forestry schemes. I should not think of it at present. There is no labour, and there are difficulties of every sort and kind. But we are cutting down our timber in Scotland at an appalling rate, and much immature timber is being cut for pit props. I do think the Government ought to look into this matter very closely, and, if at all possible, make some kind of arrangement under which landowners can at least get labour

    1099
    to replant what has been cut down. I do not put it higher than that. I do not want at present to press for more than the replacing of what has been cut down.
    As far as I can see, the only way in which it can possibly be done is by using German prisoners for the purpose. I cannot see why that should not be done, seeing a certain number are now being used to cut down timber in the North of Scotland and other places. I think the Government might well extend the operations of these people and utilise them for the purpose of replanting all these great stretches of wood which have been cut down during the past two or three years and are still being cut down. I myself have tried very hard to see whether it is possible to get any kind of labour to replant a certain portion of forest which has been cut down. I cannot get any, nor can anyone else. Why these Germans who are in prison and who are living on the fat of the land should not be made to work, as the Germans make our people work, I cannot understand. Of course, the Secretary for War would probably have a much better answer to that than anyone else can give. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties in the way of the use of German prisoners for this purpose, and he may be able to tell me that my suggestion is impracticable. I hope it is not. I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be done, and I press upon the right hon. Gentleman very strongly to consider most carefully and most sympathetically this suggestion, because the position is really extremely unsatisfactory. If we could only replant as we go along after a certain interval which is required, we should be doing a most valuable public and national service. I have only one further remark to make. To some little extent, I hope not seriously or unfairly, I have criticised some of the actions of the Board of Agriculture, and I want before I sit down to pay them a compliment. I am a member of the Central Appeal Tribunal along with my right hon. Friend opposite. I desire to say in this House that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland have provided us with most excellent reports when we have asked for them from time to time upon certain difficult cases with which we had to deal in regard to the future of labour in Scotland. We have sent many cases to be reported upon, and they have been most admirably reported upon by the various officials. The
    1100
    reports have been of the very greatest possible assistance to us, and I believe I may say—and I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me—that so far the cases sent to the Central Tribunal have been dealt with not only consistently, but with due regard to the supreme necessity of maintaining as far as possible the full production of these lands.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNG: I agree with most of what was said by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in his speech. We all, I think, share his aspirations and ideals in regard to the question of land reform in Scotland, but the difficulty is to find a solution for that problem. He omitted to tell us what his solution would be. I suppose he would have been out of order if he had attempted to do so. I was glad to hear the sympathetic response to that speech from the hon. Baronet who sits opposite (Sir G. Younger). I agree also with many of the suggestions which lie has made. I do not propose to follow them in detail, because I think that if I were to do so I should be out of order. I ask the indulgence of the Committee only for a very brief space to draw attention to the Report of the Board of Agriculture and to the complete failure of the Board, so far as I have been able to see, to show any real appreciation of the problems in connection with land arising out of the War. These problems are bound to profoundly affect agriculture and the whole of the land system. I quite agree with the hon. Baronet opposite that in developing any land policy under the existing Landowners Act, 1911, the Board have had to meet with extraordinary difficulties, and with very great handicaps. The unwise and, in my opinion, shortsighted withdrawal of the Grant of £200,000 last year makes it perfectly clear that something very drastic will have to be done in Scotland if land reform is to go forward there, and if Scotland is ever to get the benefit of the spirit and intention of the reform which is embodied in that particular piece of legislation. In the first appendix to the Report, the only part, in fact, which throws any light upon the Board's administration on the land settlement Section of the Act, we find this amazing record of failure: "Since the Act came into force in 1912 there have been in all" (this is from the Report of the Board of Agriculture) "some 5,749 applications for new holdings" (that is up to the end of the 31st December last), "and only 504 applicants

    1101
    had been settled upon the land at that time." That is not one in ten—not even one in eleven.
    To judge from the statements in the Report of the reasons which prompted this confession of failure, it would appear to be very improbable that the balance, or any of the balance of those 5,749 applicants will ever have their demand satisfied at all. Yet the Report contains not one word, or even a suggestion, that this question of land settlement after the War has been even seriously considered or entered upon by the Board of Agriculture. This lethargy and laissez-faire of the Board if I may so characterise it, is the more apparent in that the Report contains not one suggestion or even an indication that the Board itself has taken any steps to provide for the demand for land which is bound to ensue as a result of the War. We know that all over the country an active propaganda has been pushed with the object of inducing disbanded soldiers and ex-Service men to emigrate to our Oversea Dominions. Nothing, so far as I am aware, has been done by the Board of Agriculture to combat this extraordinary proposal. Even the Board of Agriculture for England has at least had the imagination and the initiative to set up a Committee to inquire into the problem of settling ex-soldiers and sailors on the land, not in Rhodesia or in some other far away country, but here in our own country on our own land. So far as I am aware, however, and notwithstanding the fact that questions were put to the former Secretary for Scotland by myself and one or two other Members of this House, no inquiry of any kind has been set on foot by him in order to ascertain what ought to be done for the purpose of establishing men on the land after the War or before the War terminates. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say, that owing to the War the effective male population of Scotland is bound to be very greatly decimated, and it is more than probable that thousands of men who have been fighting at the front, and who were formerly engaged in sedentary occupations, will, or, at any rate, a large majority of them will, prefer to settle upon the land if they can get sufficient inducement in their own country to do so.
    The War, I think, has demonstrated to us and to the whole country the vital need for an increase in the home production of food, and it is a well accepted fact that a properly administered and established
    1102
    system of small holdings is the best stimulant for the home production of food, and likewise it is the best guarantee of the stability and the prosperity of our own country. I do not wish particularly to refer to Germany, but I would ask where would Germany have been to-day but for her legion of small cultivators? I have not seen it so stated, but I believe Germany's fostering of small holdings within her own borders was as much a part of the preparation for this gigantic War as the building of her fleet or the forging of her big guns. It seems to me that under these circumstances, and with all these considerations in view, we might have expected the Board of Agriculture at least to have come forward with some suggestions in regard to this great question. For such a policy of ineptitude and inertia as that which I have indicated this branch of Scottish administration is responsible. I certainly do not blame my right hon. Friend the new Secretary for Scotland, and his promotion to the Scottish Office I feel sure we all welcome. But I must say frankly that I believe his predecessor was, at any rate, in part responsible, and I think that I may add the Scottish Members themselves have been to some extent to blame. The small attendance of Scottish Members here now is an example of what has too often taken place. There has been a tendency to leave things too much in the hands of the Scottish officials, or perhaps it would be more true to say that the Scottish Members' faculty for criticism has been rendered almost innocuous by the s/stem of bureaucracy which exists in the present Scottish Office. At a time when Members of Parliament and Scottish officials should not only be looking ahead but thinking ahead, this state of things it seems to me cannot possibly be allowed to continue. As the hon. Baronet (Sir George Younger) opposite said, we are all at one in desiring some effective solution of the land question— Unionists, Labour Members and Liberals or Radicals, or whatever designation you give them, all are at one upon this question. It appears to me, therefore, that unless we get some tangible information from the Scottish officials that they are alive to their responsibilities, Scottish Members must themselves form a National party and band themselves together for the purpose of carrying out land reform as well as other great social reforms pertaining to Scotland. We ought to take a lesson from our friends in Ireland. We

    1103
    see that by combination and persistent effort they at least have got their own way as a rule, while we who are Scottish Members have to be thankful, apart from the interminable discussion on Irish affairs in this House, to have only a few hours on one day in the year to discuss our affairs. I know it would be out of order if I made any definite proposals for carrying out a policy of Land Reform, but I hope I may be allowed to add this: that Scottish Liberal Members have come to the conclusion that the time is now ripe for action in the matter of what I shall call a war emergency scheme of Land Settlement. They have appointed a Committee for the purpose of investigation and reporting on proposals for the settlement of large numbers of suitable ex-Service men on the land immediately after the War, or it may be during the progress of the War.
    May I point out to the Secretary for Scotland that the matter is urgent? Any scheme to be of real value must be carried into effect with as little delay as possible. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland this afternoon to give us an assurance that this new Land Settlement Committee will in its deliberations and work have his sympathy, and not only his sympathy, but his support, and that it will have the sympathy and support not only of the Scottish Office, but the officials there and also of the Board of Agriculture in Edinburgh. I believe that this Committee, working in sympathy with the Unionist and Labour Members, will be able to evolve some kind of non-controversial scheme which, even though it may not form a complete and final solution of the land question, will at least result in the speedy settlement on the land, in large areas in Scotland, of a prosperous and contented peasantry. The right hon. Gentleman has a great opportunity ready to his hand. I hope he will show that he has imagination, and the necessary courage to grasp the existing opportunity for a favourable settlement of this great question. It was well said the other day, in an issue of the "Pall Mall Gazette," in an article dealing with the land question, that "the revival of our rural life is the biggest task awaiting us after the War is over." I believe we must tackle this task now. If the Secretary for Scotland will give us his support and encouragement, as I am confident he will, he will gain the lasting
    1104
    appreciation and gratitude of Scotland— of the country whose interests are, for the time being, under this charge.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I concur in the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend who has just sat down in regard to the desirability of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland taking into careful consideration and, if possible, giving us some indication to-day of the plans which have been maturing, or, at any rate, which have been considered for settling ex-soldiers upon the land in Scotland. I ventured the other day to put a question upon this subject to the late Secretary for Scotland. Some of us were anxious when so much had been done for England and Wales, as to which the Committee made a speedy and admirable Report, that something of a similar character should be done for Scotland. The reply was that the matter was undergoing very careful consideration by himself and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. I hope it may be possible for the Secretary for Scotland to-day to divulge the secret which has hitherto been so jealously guarded in his breast—if not in his breast, in that of his predecessor. May I, for the moment, first offer my congratulations and best wishes for the success of the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the office of Secretary for Scotland? Anything in the nature of a critical attitude that I may take up will refer to matters in the past, and therefore not personally referring to himself. We are, therefore, in the very pleasant position of saying more or less what we wish without running the risk of offending the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the distinguished position of Secretary to-day. The Member for Ayr Burghs, in a portion of his speech, rather indicated that there was difficulty in getting suitable tenants for farms under these schemes. I have read all the reports very carefully, and I have never seen any indication whatever of that. On the contrary, as the facts show, there are an enormous number of suitable applicants. What the hon. Member stated is contrary to the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, who have themselves stated in the Report which we are now considering that the difficulty of administering the Act has not been the condition of things when you once have got the land and put the small holders on it. The great difficulty under this Act has been to get to that stage—to get to the position of putting men upon the land. When they have got there nobody has ever said that they

    1105
    were unsuitable, or that they were not a success. I want to make that point very clear. In support of it I would like to read several paragraphs from the Board's own Report:
    "From reports which have reached the Board these occupants of holdings constituted under the Act have made good progress; and few difficulties have arisen with them so far as the Board is concerned. In the main the holders have applied themselves industriously to the cultivation of their land, their annuities in respect of building loans have been punctually paid, and, so far as the Board are aware, they have not allowed their rents to fall into arrear. The men who obtained entry before the War commenced were favourably situated in the sense that they obtained their stock and equipment at normal rates, and subsequently reaped the benefit of the rise in prices consequent on the outbreak of the War. But even in the ease of those who secured entry after the War commenced and who had thus a heavier burden at ingoing, the results generally appear to be satisfactory."
    That is a very satisfactory account of what has happened up till now. We all know that the chamber of agriculture have their own opinion on this matter, though many of them since have admitted that a different state of things to what they expected was found, and that the indications were that these holdings would prove a distinct success. It is not their fault if, as the hon. Member indicated, there has been some difficulty about getting suitable holders. The difficulty is in getting the holdings to suit the holders.
    I should like to say a few words in regard to the Report itself. I regret very much that the Report is so varied in its character from preceding Reports. It almost seems to have been taken in hand by those who took no interest in the proceedings of the Board for Scotland, because when once you become accustomed to a certain form of information you like to have continuity in it, otherwise you cannot find out your information, and comparison is difficult. It is not an easy matter really then to keep a clear idea whether or not progress has been made. Let me be somewhat more explicit. I refer to the fact that there is no account published in the present Report of the Agricultural Fund of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. That is very unsatisfactory. We ought to have had, as in previous years—for it only occupied two pages—a report clearly showing the state of that fund. Finance in matters of this kind is all-important. It is, indeed, the whole question which we have had to debate so much in regard to the Grants. To leave it out altogether is a matter I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to look into. If possible, I trust he will give us an
    1106
    assurance that in future Reports that account will be included. We know, of course, that there are considerable difficulties owing to the War—depletion of staff, and so on—but in a small matter of this kind, really, it is not sufficient to give the War as an excuse. There are other features in the Report of the same character. For instance, we have no account of the management of the estates of the Board. The Board has considerable estates, and draws a considerable revenue, and naturally incurs a considerable expenditure. Up till now we have had accounts of these estates. There is no account in the present Report. I shall be very glad if the Secretary for Scotland will consider that, and again, if possible, give an assurance that these Reports will have some continuity, and give the same full information as before, so that we may be able to judge of the proceedings of the Board.
    The Report certainly discloses very great delay and very great difficulty in the creation of small holdings. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs has alluded to the difficulties. I am sure he is well aware of them, because he has knowledge how some of these difficulties have arisen. I hope, however, there is to be a better disposition to meet the opinion of our country on the part of all parties in this House and elsewhere in this matter. The Report does show that the Board has had to act under very great difficulties and restrictions I, therefore, certainly make every allowance for that in regard to the matter to which I have just alluded. Enormous compensation, the Report shows, has been paid both to proprietors and tenants in connection with the creation of small holdings. It does seem to me that we have reached a time in the history of our country when prejudices ought not to be put forward by landowners or tenants, for it means the taking from the State literally of enormous sums simply because there is a prejudice against national small holdings. The time has come when we ought to be proud of a larger population being planted upon the land. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has drawn attention to a very interesting case in the Report of the Band Court of the patriotism of the men. Thirty-two small holdings produced no less than fifty-three men for the service and defence of their country. The hon. Member did not mention—and I should like to do it—the fact that these thirty-two small

    1107
    holdings, which were established in 1905, were upon land extending only to 125 acres of ordinary land and 70 acres of land in the Island of Lewis, showing what can be done by putting men on even a very small area of land. It is very wonderful. Fifty-three persons were got from these 195 acres! Why the whole rural population of the right hon. Gentleman's county, and of the three neighbouring counties, is only 22 per 1,000 acres cultivated, which gives an idea of the extraordinary depletion of the population, and what could be done if that land were made available for a large number of people to be settled down in holdings. The success of the holdings constituted by the Board has been very great, and that is a very gratifying feature in the Report.
    I wish to draw attention to a feature in the Report which I very much regret, and that is the part relating to "Loans to existing landholders, under Section 9 of the Act of 1911." I very much regret to see that the operations of the Board under that Section, and under Section 7, have been enormously restricted, and I do not think I have been fairly treated with regard to this matter. Last year, on the discussion of the Scottish Estimates, I drew the special attention of the Secretary for Scotland to this Section, and to the fact that there was a suggestion that assistance should be limited. There are two kinds of assistance given, one by loans for the improvement or rebuilding of dwelling-houses or other buildings on new holdings, and assistance can be given to existing landholders. Where the loans have been granted the instalments have been paid up to the very hilt, and no more beneficent work could be done by the Board than the granting of loans to these men who are anxious to improve their holdings. When I drew the attention of the late Secretary of Scotland to the suggestion that these loans should be curtailed, he gave me his personal assurance in this House that that should not be done. But that has been done, and I want to show how serious the restriction has been. It is not a matter of form, but it is a very grave and serious matter that those facilities should be withdrawn. Under Section 9 of the Act the amount granted in 1913 was £5,159, and in 1914 £8,223, but in 1915 the amount was reduced to £509.
    Mr. WATSON: There was a considerable reduction in the number of applicants.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Owing to the War, and other causes, the number of applications was reduced to seventy-eight, but only nine of the applicants were allowed to benefit under this Act. I do think that is a very unfortunate thing, and it is still more unfortunate when you consider that we are told in an earlier part of the Report that the Board has £250,000 invested in Treasury Bills. The money was never given to the Board of Agriculture to be used in Treasury Bills, but it was given to be used for the agricultural needs of Scotland, and one of the greatest needs of Scotland is the rebuilding of the homesteads, and when the holders undertake to do it at their own expense by way of loan it is a serious matter to put a stop to that progress, and it is in direct violation of the undertaking given in this House by the late Secretary for Scotland. I hope the present Secretary for Scotland may find it possible to allow that system to be resumed in full vigour in future. I go so far as to say that Scotland has been deprived of rights under this Small Landholders Act of 1911 by the administrative act of the Secretary for Scotland. The purposes of the Act are not being carried out, and, as I have just pointed out, it is not because of lack of funds. It is confessed in the Report that they have £250,000 invested in Treasury Bills, the most liquid form of assets, and when we know the great needs of Scotland, why should not the money be spent? I want to ask this important constitutional question: What right has the right hon. Gentleman —he knows I am not putting it personally —to suspend the operation of an Act? He is there, just as the whole Cabinet are there, to carry out the purposes of this Act. They are bound to do it. It is their duty to this House and to the country to carry out the law. Why are they suspending the operation of the Act?
    Something has been said about the number of applicants. The total number of applicants for small holdings up to the date of the Report was 5,473 for new holdings and 3,857 for enlargements, a total of 9,330. Those figures have not decreased owing to the War, but have risen to a total of 9,794. That is since the commencement of this Act. What number of those have been satisfied? If we take the table in the Report we find that the total number, including those of last year, was 504 new

    1109
    holdings and 342 enlargements, or a total of 846 out of 9,794. I say that is a substantial denial to the people of Scotland of their rights. What happened last year? There were only seventy new holdings and 103 enlargements, or a total of 173. Last year the Secretary for Scotland held out the hope that we should have in the year 507 new holdings and 316 enlargements, or a total of 823; and of these, as I say, only 173 have been granted. I wish to go a little further. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland a question which I put to the late Secretary which he never answered. I have been informed that a decree has gone forth that no further small holdings are to be created. I put that question definitely and categorically, and asked for a denial. I have had no answer to that question. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that an order has been issued in the Department that no new small holdings are to be created. There is, apparently, a very unsympathetic attitude towards the creation of small holdings. There is difficulty in getting information or assistance in regard to this question. It has been said that the cost of getting small holdings where compensation has to be given is prohibitive. I am not going to defend this compensation. I think the Lindean case outrageous, but there are many cases where agreements have been established, and I put that to the late Secretary for Scotland. I gave him those particulars, and he then made inquiries and found what I said was perfectly correct. A number of farms have been obtained and settled under agreement without any resort to law.
    Mr. TENNANT: This is rather important. I want to know whether the hon. Member and those who act with him agree that you can come to an agreement upon the question of compensation?
    Mr. MOLTENO: I think so. If the compensation were reasonable I think certainly.
    Mr. TENNANT: I understood there was a school of thought which would not admit any compensation.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I do not take up that attitude myself. There may be cases in which compensation is perfectly legitimate and which ought to be given, but, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are cases where holdings have been settled by agreement. I should like to mention a case in which an intended
    1110
    small holder died, and the Board had on its books twelve other small holders who applied for the small holding, so that there is a very appropriate demand if the holdings can be got. The greatest difficulty is found in getting any decisions of the Board as to whether land is suitable or not, and, when a decision is got, no particulars are afforded as to why it was not suitable. Scotland is not being treated as it ought to be, and as this House intended it should be treated under the Act of 1911. I think it is a question of machinery. The present Secretary for Scotland, as the previous Secretary for Scotland, has my greatest sympathy in the difficult task placed upon his shoulders. As my hon. Friend (Sir George Younger) said, he has to be a Jack-of-all-trades; he does not get a fair chance, because he has too much to do, and some special representative for Scottish agriculture is needed in this House. We have it in the cases of England and Ireland, and we ought to have it for Scotland. We ought to have it in justice and fairness to the Board of Agriculture and to the Secretary for Scotland. He ought to be relieved of this enormous work of detail of great intricacy, a work which would need the presence of the Secretary for Scotland in Scotland far more than can be the case owing to his duties. Therefore, if we are ever to get this problem properly dealt with it will only be when we have a representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House I say it is not fair to the Board itself, because, however energetic our Board of Agriculture may be, if they have not someone who is able constantly to push their view and keep closely in touch with them, and realise what is to be done, with the energy which comes from personal knowledge and association and determination to carry out a scheme, however good their schemes are and their desire to carry them out, they will not get carried out.
    Everybody knows what goes on with regard to Ireland. There they have an enormous advantage from having a representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House. With regard to Scotland, the problem is more urgent than it is in Ireland, and yet in Ireland you have 500,000 holdings, whilst in Scotland we have only got 78,000, or about one-eighth the number you have in Ireland. In England and Wales you have over 500,000 holdings. You have to face the extremely difficult problem of putting these men on new

    1111
    holdings, which is far more difficult than improving existing holdings, and without better machinery we cannot hope to succeed in Scotland in this matter. We shall have coming home at the end of the War a very large number of men quite suited for small holdings, and therefore further provision is urgently required. Scotland has contributed a greater proportion of men to the Colours than either England or Ireland. I will take a very low estimate as to the number of small holdings which will be required. Scotland has contributed some 500,000 men to the Colours, and if you place the number requiring small holdings at 5 per cent. you will want 25,000, and the people of Scotland will expect some arrangement to be made to satisfy the aspirations of these men. These men have fought magnificently in the trenches, and they have come forward in Scotland in greater numbers than they have in any other part of the Kingdom, and, therefore, we ought to be ready, when they are ready after the War, with some machinery that will provide that the aspirations of these men can be realised.
    In Scotland the Grant to the Board of Agriculture in 1914–15 was £244,000, but it was reduced last year to £66,500, and the Estimate for 1916–17 is £68,900, or an increase of £2,400, and that still shows a decrease of £175,100 on the sum voted in 1914–15. We all recognise the sacrifices which it is necessary to make in war time, but I think in matters of this kind it is a question of vital importance, because every penny spent in this way brings adequate return. Now what happened in regard to England? I think in a matter of this kind the sacrifices ought to be equal and should not be confined to one portion of the United Kingdom. Take the case of England. The Grant to the Board of Agriculture for 1916–17 was £335,160, or a reduction of £8,840 upon the Vote of £344,000 in 1914–15. With regard to Ireland, you have a total sum of £1,071,838 voted for similar purposes, and that is a reduction of £6,527 on the Vote for 1914–15 before the War. The position we are in is that while England is asked to sacrifice £8,840 and Ireland £6,527, Scotland is asked to sacrifice £175,000 out of a Vote of £244,000. As there are £250,000 of Treasury Bills readily available for the creation of small holdings, I think the small holders of Scotland ought to have facilities for loans, improvements, and rebuilding. We have a right to demand that the funds which do exist
    1112
    should be used for the purposes for which they have been granted. We all know that it takes time, because land cannot be acquired at once, and has to go through a long process; but unless we begin to act very soon we shall not be able to do anything to meet the demand that must come from the soldiers when they return from the front. I think we ought at once to take this matter in hand earnestly, and make preparation and provision for these men.
    Mr. WATSON: I do not want to say much on this particular Vote, but I would like to join in the general expression there has been of a hope that we may now unite on all sides of the House at arriving at some fair and adequate land settlement scheme for Scotland. I am sure that those who have been political opponents of mine, and who may become opponents again, will believe that I am sincere in saying that I have always favoured the making of small holdings. I know we have had very diverse opinions as to the best and most effective methods by which any such scheme could be carried out. Such questions as compensation and other matters connected with the land question have provided subjects of dispute and great practical difficulty in carrying out the Act of 1911. Undoubtedly the problem is showing itself in two main directions. The first direction is, as has already been commented on by more than one of the previous speakers, the problem of the returned soldiers who have been serving in the field, and who, after having been discharged from the Service, either before or after demobilisation, desire to settle on the land as the best way of earning a living. Undoubtedly they will have first claim, as all such persons must have, on our country, and on Scotland in particular. In the second place, there is another new element which has not been adequately recognised, and it is the carrying out of the existing Act as applied to the Lowlands of Scotland. At the present moment it is more important than ever that we should produce as much of our own food as possible in this Kingdom. The Lowlands of Scotland provide a very large amount of the corn and other cereals that are grown in that country. In considering the question of small holdings in the Lowlands of Scotland you are up against the question as to whether, by proposing to break up farms rather than maintaining the big farms, you are not injuring the economic and adequate production of food for this country. We shall have to

    1113
    consider that. There is much that may be considered controversial about that subject, and I do not wish to engage in anything controversial at the present time. That, however, is a very important problem in relation to the Lowlands of Scotland. You do not meet with the same difficulty in the Highlands. It has always been considered that the Highlands were particularly favourable for a settlement in the way of small holdings, and that is more true now, when the question of afforestation has come to the front, and the combination of small holdings with afforestation. Undoubtedly that is a point which the right hon. Gentleman will require to consider very carefully and very speedily, because the question of afforestation is one which should not be delayed, as it must necessarily take some time to work out. The amount of money spent upon afforestation before the War has produced very little result. I am not blaming anybody for that, but it does prove that it takes a long time to settle what is the best method and the best place for such experiments.
    6.0 P.M.
    Reference was made by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) to the advantages, financial and otherwise, which Ireland enjoys in this respect. As regards Ireland, and the money Ireland is getting, the problem there is much simpler, because it is far more often there a question of taking over a farm as it exists, and not a question of sub-dividing at all. The difficulty in regard to a small holdings scheme in Scotland is, in the first place, the getting of labour, and, in the second place, the enormously increased price of the materials required for the purpose of making the necessary improvements and buildings which are necessitated by the sub-division either of the farms you take or the portions of the farms which you take. That presents a very different aspect to the question of carrying out small holdings in Scotland and the settlement of people on the land under the purchase system in Ireland, which has proved very successful in that country. I wish to say a few words on the general aspect of the question, and again I speak of the Lowlands. It is clearly obvious that the big schemes pay the best. In the first place, you are not so apt to be splitting up existing farms, and, secondly, you are getting a large group of small holders settled together, which means greater ease in the co-operation which is essential to get your goods to the market and for
    1114
    getting the materials required for production. Clearly it is easier for them to work their holdings by lending each other their ploughs and horses, and in a hundred and one other ways. Consequently the whole problem is a very much easier one, and, when you are dealing with land which requires high cultivation, co-operation is rather a necessary thing. Again, I would ask that this question of the settlement of our returned soldiers should be specially dealt with in whatever method is considered appropriate. From recent experience I think the Scottish Board of Agriculture would do well to take a hint or tip now and then from the procedure of the English Board of Agriculture, and they might do it very well as regards this particular matter of setting up a Committee to consider how best our returning soldiers may be settled upon the land. This might have been done a great deal earlier in regard to sending representatives to assist tribunals under the Military Service Act to settle what was necessary, and what was the absolute minimum required to run the farms in a particular district. I do not take any great credit for it, but I did suggest to the late Secretary for Scotland, having read about it in Lord Selborne's speech in the House of Lords, that he should appoint military representatives. He did so, but unfortunately they only appeared before the Appeal Tribunals. It would have been more serviceable if they had appeared before the local tribunals, and several appeal tribunals expressed regret that had not been done. It may have been done in a few odd cases, but it certainly was not generally done, and of course it may not have been practicable in many cases. The English Board of Agriculture had appointed their representatives several months before, and had sent them to the tribunals with very excellent and successful results, because after all they were the people who could be most useful in telling the tribunals what was the genuine minimum amount of labour required on any particular farm to keep up the national food supply and the industry of agriculture going. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire referred to the passage in the Report about loans to existing landowners. I have rather a difficulty in understanding that passage. The statement is that, in view of the necessity of conserving their funds, it was decided, with the approval of the Secre-

    1115
    tary for Scotland, to limit the assistance to those classes of loans specified in the Third Report, which properly fall under Section 7, Sub-section (7), of the Act, and to cases where the loans previously granted were insufficient, owing to the rise in prices, to complete the buildings in course of construction. I should be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what cases were excluded, as the result of that decision. I am rather anxious to know, because if they were cases which genuinely needed assistance I entirely concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire that it is a matter for great regret that any restriction of that kind should be imposed in these times. The amount required is not large, and, if it is really necessary either for the proper maintenance of buildings, or to put up further buildings which are necessary for the holdings, then it is a great pity that such assistance should be refused, and I would suggest that the decision should be reconsidered by the right hon. Gentleman and the Board. The passage is a little mysterious in its language, and I am not quite sure what it means. I shall be very pleased to learn.
    The question of afforestation is one of the most important in this country and in Scotland, more particularly since this War began. I do not know whether it is true, but I am told that if the War goes on for three years and we continue cutting at the present rate, particularly matured timber, we shall not have a stick of timber left in Scotland. We shall then get back to the days of the Borderers when Sir Walter Scott regretted that there was no timber in Scotland except the Ettrick Forest. He did a good deal in getting timber planted, and there were a good many woods planted in Peeblesshire. It has proved very good timber both for shelters and other purposes, and a lot is being used at the present time. It would be a matter for regret if this question were not taken up as an urgent one. I refer not only to the general question of planting further areas which existed before the War, but also to the question of replacing the timber which we are taking away at the present time. We know from reports that have been circulated either in this House or outside that there are acres and acres, particularly of the higher ground in Scotland, which are very suitable for planting, especially the soft woods which are in such
    1116
    demand at the present time. I understand that it is not entirely the soft woods which are being taken, not only for war purposes, but also for pit props, in regard to which we have suffered so much from a shortage in these times.
    There was a deputation up here recently and there have certainly been meetings with regard to this question and the terms on which it would be best to proceed; whether we should have afforestation by the State alone or whether assistance should be given to landowners, of course under conditions, or whether we should have a combination of the two methods. Personally, I have not any very great knowledge on the subject, but it certainly strikes me that it would not be the best way to have afforestation by the State alone. I cannot help thinking that a combination of the two methods would be the most practicable, but it is a matter on which I cannot profess to speak, and I can only ask that it should be taken up urgently and dealt with in a broad way on very broad lines. Money should not be stinted, because it is a matter on which our national interests very largely depend. We have felt the want of it in the course of this War, and we ought to take advantage of the experience we have gained in this, as in many other respects. Before I sit down I would just like to join in the welcome to which others have given expression to the right hon. Gentleman in the post which he now occupies.
    Mr. MORTON: I do not propose to make any attack either upon the Secretary for Scotland or his predecessor. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in this post, and I hope that he wilt have a successful run in the Office, He has not been here long, and he cannot therefore be blamed for anything. You cannot blame the Board of Agriculture, because if you do they turn round on you at once and say, "You have taken away the money. How can you expect us to do anything without money?" That is quite true. The real persons to blame are the Scottish Members of Parliament. Where are they to-day? Somebody suggests that perhaps they are fighting. I expect they are fighting with the waves in some village where the Zeppelins do not come. There is no doubt at all that if the Scottish Members of Parliament stuck together like the Irish or Welsh Members, instead of looking out, I suppose, for Office and that sort of thing, we could get anything of importance we

    1117
    wanted for the management of Scotland, but that can never be. The moment we have educated an Honorary Secretary up to his work the Government snatch him away. I am not therefore surprised that we do not get, as we ought to get, better government and more efficient administration in Scotland. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to show that some progress is being made in the question of afforestation. I have had a great many complaints from old men and widows that the promise given by the Prime Minister that at least one son should be left to look after the old people and to get in their crops—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir G. Younger): I am afraid that I must ask the hon. Member not to transgress the rules by going outside the Vote.
    Mr. MORTON: The Board of Agriculture now deals with this question of somebody stopping at home to look after the food supply. I have submitted the matter to the Board of Agriculture, from whom I have letters on the subject, and they have actually appointed someone to attend the tribunals, and see that the question is not forgotten. I therefore want to ask the Board of Agriculture, through the right hon. Gentleman, to see that the old men and widows are at least left with some of their children to get in their crops for the good of the country generally and of themselves. I want to make it quite clear that I am right in my contention that the Board of Agriculture are looking after this matter.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but I really must ask the hon. Member not to proceed. The only people who have any authority whatever are the tribunals. The Board of Agriculture have nothing in the world to do with keeping people on the land under the National Service Act.
    Mr. MORTON: The Board of Agriculture appointed a representative to attend each tribunal to see that these agricultural questions were looked into. I have got a letter from the Board of Agriculture, in answer to one to the Secretary for Scotland, and it distinctly says that they have appointed a representative to attend each of the tribunals to look into these very matters. I cannot say more than that, and I do not think it is a wise thing to stop a question of this sort being discussed. We have done well both as regards sailors and soldiers in the Highlands of Scotland and we might spare a few seconds to think
    1118
    of the old men and widows who are unable to work. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will give attention to the matter. Nobody can complain of Scotland in regard to the War. We have done everything we could to help the Government. We understood, whether rightly or wrongly, that this £175,000 was an annual Grant which could not be taken away without an Act of Parliament. We have lost it for two successive years, and we do not know when we are going to get it back. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will look into the legal question as to whether a Grant in an Act of Parliament can be taken away except by an Act of Parliament. The Scottish Members are never consulted in these matters. We heard nothing about the taking away of this £175,000 until after it was done, and we understood that the Secretary for Scotland did not know anything about it either. It was said to have been done by somebody in the Treasury, who struck his pen through the sum of £175,000 and put in £10,000. The Scottish Members ought to be consulted in these matters. The Board of Agriculture say, "They have taken away the money. How can you expect us to go on with small holdings? Where is the land?" There is no question, so far as the Highlands are concerned, where the land is. You have the Report of a Royal Commission in 1895 which maps out for you and earmarks all the land in the Highlands suitable for the extension of crofts, new crofts, and small holdings. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is land. In Sutherlandshire there are 388,000 acres so marked as being fit for this work, and in the whole of the crofting counties of Scotland there are nearly 2,000,000 acres. I would like to say, in regard to what has been said about the Highlands being treated separately, that I hope what I have always said as a humble individual, and what the late Mr. Weir said—and nobody knew more about crofting questions than he did—that you ought to deal separately with the Highlands of Scotland, will not be forgotten. I am glad to be able to acknowledge that the Tory party in the House of Lords, through Lord Lansdowne, in 1908, actually promised to accept the Bill of that year so far as the Highlands were concerned. But the foolish Liberal Government refused to accept it, and, therefore, we got nothing. These are two different questions altogether, and the Highlands and the Lowlands must, in my

    1119
    opinion, be dealt with separately. But I do not think it is necessary to detain the Committee to-day, because there are a number of other things which ought to be discussed.
    What I want Scottish Members and this Committee to remember is the promise that was made to the country in 1905 by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, when he said that we ought to set about colonising our own country. That is what we want the Board of Agriculture to assist us to do, especially in the Highlands of Scotland. Instead of that, at the present moment the Government are doing all they can to damage the Highlands. They have reduced the postal service, they will not give us any land, and they are stopping loans, and all these things, instead of going straight ahead. There is room for double the population that there is now in the Highlands, and they would be able to produce not so much corn perhaps, but sheep and cattle, the best in the country. But, if you will not give them a chance, you are not likely to get anything done. Sheep are turned off to make room for deer. We have got one case where it is said that 40,000 sheep were turned off for the purpose of making a deer forest of the land. The result of that kind of thing is that you have to go to foreign countries for your sheep and mutton. All these things want looking into in the best interests of the country, and the matter was very aptly put by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman when he said that we should "colonise our own country." A Committee was appointed of Scottish Members to consider the questions brought up by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno). That Committee made a Report. I need not read it to the Committee, because it was quoted just now by my hon. Friend. That Report was signed by myself, by Mr. Molteno, and by Mr. Holmes, and was submitted to the Scottish Liberal Members and agreed to by them. The Report was sent to the Government, and we have had no answer from the Government. I believe we had an acknowledgment, but it has never been presented to us. Who is to blame for this? I do not know. The question is amply set out in the Report. I have got the original documents here, and we should have had an answer from the Government. The secretary to the Committee was instructed to submit copies of it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Secretary for Scotland, and I suppose he
    1120
    did so. If there was any acknowledgment we have never seen it. There have been two meetings of Scottish Liberal Members since, and no reply whatever has been presented to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the Report!"] My hon. Friends suggest that I should read the whole of this Report. I should be very pleased to do so but for the fact that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Molteno) has quoted a good deal of it, and therefore you might say, Mr. Chairman, that I was out of order in repeating what he said. This is a genuine Report in which we represent our case to the Government, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the Secretary for Scotland, and ask that it should be given their consideration. What we particularly pointed out was the difference between the treatment of Scotland and England and Ireland. If there is any part of the United Kingdom that should be treated fairly and well, it is, in my opinion, Scotland. In fact, Scotland ought to have preferential treatment, considering the position that country always held in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) says it is as good as the City of London. All I know is that as regards the City of London there are a good many Scotsmen there, and everybody is glad to see them there. A Scotsman came in the eighteenth century and established the Bank of England, and therefore, of course, Scotland has got something to do with the City of London. And you may find the same thing all over the world. But, joking apart, I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this Report of the Scottish Liberal Members. There must be a copy about somewhere, and if there is not, as I have got the original here, we can easily give the right hon. Gentleman another copy.
    But what I wanted to insist upon is not so much the reading of the document as the necessity of the Government being got to consider it. Somebody seems to have stood idly by and allowed somebody else, not the Scottish Secretary, to take away this money from us without our knowledge and without it being brought before the Liberal Scottish Members in any shape or form. Of course, I can understand the position of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). The Board of Agriculture is doing nothing and that pleases him best, and therefore he is in a good humour and thinks things are going on very well. Of course, we have heard something about all parties working

    1121
    together. I have my doubt about that though. I have my doubts as to whether any good will come of it, because the only probable result would be that we shall pay too much for the land and that they will spoil the whole of the transaction. We had a case at Strathnaver, in the county of Sutherland, where that was so, and in which the late Government bought an estate from the landlord, paid a great deal too much for it, and in the end, after some years, the Government had to take the land over themselves and settle crofters there under the Act. It should never be forgotten that you cannot make these land schemes turn out well if you pay too much for the land. In the Highlands they are quite ready to pay a fair rent. They do not care so much there about purchasing the freehold. What they want is fair rents and fixity of tenure. I fancy it would be out of order to talk about that subject just now, and I am not going to discuss it. But I do hope that the new Secretary for Scotland, who has had considerable experience in this House and has done some hard work, that he will use some of his energy to see that Scotland is fairly treated. It is very unfortunate that the attendance of Members to-day at this Debate is so small. I cannot say why it is, and I do not quite absolve them. Possibly the reason is that this business has been put off so late in the Session. Scottish business does not take up much time of the House. I do not think we had even one day last year, and I certainly think we ought to have two days each Session for the discussion of Scottish estimates.
    Mr. HOGGE: We should have three days.
    Mr. MORTON: My hon. Friend says we should have three days. Apparently we are glad to get one sometimes. But there is no question which wants more serious consideration than the land question in Scotland. As I have said, there are two different questions arising in connection with the Lowlands and the Highlands. But if you go down to Scotland now and attempt to talk politics it will all result in the question, "What are you going to do with the land?" Of course, I admit that much cannot be done during the War. In the Small Holdings Colonies Bill it is proposed to give 2,000 acres to the whole of Scotland to deal with returning soldiers. That is a ridiculously small amount, and I should have liked to have
    1122
    seen the Secretary for Scotland opposing the Bill unless they gave us more. So far as I am concerned, I have done my best to help the Government in the War, and I have not taken up the time of the House by asking questions or making speeches during the War. Some of my hon. Friends from Scotland have very properly attempted to do so, and with more or less success. I have never taken up the time of the House, but on this occasion I do wish to call the serious attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the position of land in Scotland. The Government must not break bargains with us as regards grants of money. When it is put in the Act that we are to have £200,000, you ought to stick to it; and when we are told in that Report, which I did not read, that Ireland was to have over £1,000,000—I do not grudge it to Ireland—I do not understand why Scotland should not have a million as well. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two millions!"] My hon. Friend says £2,000,000. Well I am sure that a great deal more will be wanted than £2,000,000. It need not be a question of charity. If the money were given by way of loan at a low rate of interest that would probably settle the matter. I hope that something will be done as soon as the War is ended—I hope it may end successfully soon—to meet the just and proper desires of the people of Scotland.
    Mr. TENNANT: There are two observations which were made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down to which I ought to advert. The first was his reference to an answer to a document which is apparently locked in his pocket. So far as I am aware it has not been seen by any other Member except by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno).
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was written to the Secretary for Scotland.
    Mr. HOGGE: It was sent by your Parliamentary Secretary.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend who opened the Debate (Mr. Macpherson) was wholly unaware of the contents of the document. I may say that I am wholly unaware of its contents. Therefore I do not feel that I can indicate the line of answer.
    Mr. MORTON: I will read it to you if you like.
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have the document.
    Mr. MORTON: This is a matter of honour with regard to the Honorary Secretary. He was ordered by the meeting to send a copy of this document—not the original, which is to be kept—not to yourself, because you were not Secretary for Scotland at the time, but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the then Secretary for Scotland. I think there is no doubt that he sent it.
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is worth while pursuing the matter further, except to say that I will engage to have it looked into in the hope that the document may be forthcoming and that we may find an answer to it. Perhaps the most important part of the hon. Member's speech was his reference to Scots in the City of London. Upon that I am sure the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who represents the City of London, who I am glad to see in his place, will agree with me that there are in London not only many Scots but also many what are called "Heids of Departments."
    Mr. MORTON: I will send you a copy of this document.
    Mr. TENNANT: I feel that I ought to apologise for taking up any time in this Debate at all, because I have already on previous occasions during this Session of Parliament had to conduct Estimates upon four or five separate days, and may have to do so on other days. That is almost too much a share for one person.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is the advantage of being a Scotsman.
    Mr. TENNANT: I should like to say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) how grateful I am to him and to other members of the Committee who have made kind references to myself and expressed hopes of my administration of the Office I now have the honour to hold. May I also say to the Committee what I have felt very deeply throughout the strenuous period from which I have now emerged, having left the War Office, under what a deep sense of obligation I am to my hon. Friends behind me for the innumerable services willingly rendered throughout all that difficult and strenuous time.
    Mr. HOGGE: We will keep you going yet.
    Mr. TENNANT: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member upon his happy
    1124
    linking of land and life in the speech he delivered. I wholly share his view that any Minister who endeavoured to govern to any degree, if he omitted to touch the land problem, would be guilty of an omission which is inconceivable. Undoubtedly the life of the country is bound up with our native land. I should like to join with those hon. Members who have adverted to this subject in saying that we who are in responsible positions and, indeed, the whole country are under a great obligation to our brothers in Scotland for the manner in which they have come forward, particularly the small land-owning class, and showed their patriotism. It has really been a most remarkable demonstration. My hon. Friend went on to deal with the main topic that we have under consideration to-day, and I am very glad that in his opening observations he linked together the work that can be done by small holders from an agricultural point of view and also the work of afforestation. The grouping together of those two things is of great and vital importance. Before I come to the question of placing an increased number of small holders upon our native land perhaps I may be allowed to deal with a few of the subsidiary points raised in the Debate. Upon the general question of afforestation I should like to say, in answer to the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Watson) as to the question of the steps we propose to take to replace the timber which is now being cut and all the questions germane to the detailed working of proposals with regard to afforestation in Scotland, that I cannot pronounce upon them to-day. I would ask the indulgence of the Committee to absolve me from making a declaration of policy to-day, because I really have not had the time to give to the subject and because I am desirous of consulting with my technical advisers, particularly with the Advisory Committee set up by my predecessor, on these very difficult subjects. I hope to be able to arrive at some definite scheme of policy which I shall announce later. That does not mean that I am bankrupt to-day, as my hon. Friend will see when I come to another statement in connection with the complementary subjects of small holdings and agriculture. A suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) was that we should utilise German prisoners more in the planting of timber. That has already been carried out by my Noble Friend Lord

    1125
    Lovat. There is, of course, a difficulty in multiplying the use of German prisoners owing to the difficulty of finding guards, because when they are given outside employment there is always a danger of escape.
    I will deal now with the Grant of £200,000 and the fact that it has been in abeyance for two years. All of us who have watched the progress of events and the financial difficulties which are inseparable from the conduct of a great War such as this, must realise that it is not only desirable but that it is the distinct duty of those who are our financial advisers to economise where it is possible. Where you have, as in this case, a certain unexpended balance, it is surely not an improper attitude of mind to adopt for our financial advisers to say, "We will hold up giving you further money until you have spent what you actually have." I apprehend that was the attitude adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards my predecessor. I am bound to say that until you have expended what you have in hand there seems to be a great deal to be said for that policy. It does not follow that in the fullness of time you will not be able to utilise all the money. I hope we shall be able to do that. I understand that my predecessor made it quite clear that there was no abrogation of our rights but that it was merely a question of a temporary holding up. If that is understood, I hope the Committee will not think that Scotland has been defrauded of her rights.
    Mr. HOGGE: We do.
    Mr. TENNANT: To say "We do" is not argument. It is a mere statement of opinion.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is there not a chance of getting it this year, now that your predecessor is at the Treasury?
    Mr. TENNANT: I mast not be taken to hold out too definite a promise, but at the same time I should say there is a very good chance. Although I do not want to make a definite declaration as to the number of small holdings that can be established in a certain period of time, it is not possible for those of us who are responsible to disregard altogether the fact that the buildings which you have to put on the land before you can establish new small holdings are costing and must cost a great deal more money than they did in the past. The hon. Member for Suther-
    1126
    landshire (Mr. Morton) indicated that in his view it was not a proper proceeding to embark upon new small holdings unless they were going to be provided at a reasonable charge and a proper rent. If, as is the fact, building operations cost 45 per cent. more and fencing operations cost 100 per cent. more than they did in peace time it is very difficult to get away from those facts.
    Mr. MORTON: We have a great many cases in Sutherlandshire where you do not want new houses at all. We have the houses already, but we want to increase the holdings.
    Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will bring me cases of that kind, where we can embark at once, without putting a new small holder down, or without putting an old small holder in a worse position than he was in before, I will give the matter my most careful consideration.
    Mr. MORTON: I will bear that in mind.
    Mr. TENNANT: I would also remind the Committee that this difficulty of the increased cost of building, fencing, draining, and so forth, is not the only difficulty. There are many others. Anyone who looks at the Report will see how difficult it is, particularly in respect of the men who have been sent abroad or have gone of their own free will. There are not only the small holders themselves in many cases, but there are factors and all persons whose presence is required for the conduct of the machinery—very cumbrous machinery I am afraid—of putting this Act in motion. I should like to take note of a very important statement made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) in relation to this machinery, which, I think it is agreed in all parts of the House is cumbersome. I noticed that the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) observed that some better means should be found than have already been found for settling these contested problems, but I am interested to know that my hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) thinks that the question of compensation could, and indeed ought, to be settled by agreement—he must mean compensation for depreciation in selling value. If that is so, I should be very glad to see if I cannot institute some kind of arrangement by which agreement shall be made, and I shall look to him and to my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) for support.
    Mr. HOGGEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. TENNANT: Whether my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) will support me or not is another matter. My hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) asked me a definite question as to whether any order or no order had been made for the total suspension of small holdings. I can answer that question in the negative. No order of that kind has been given. But we cannot altogether disregard the fact, first of all, that the men are absent, and secondly, that the cost is greatly increased, and therefore it is very difficult to proceed as rapidly as you would do in peace-time, in fact, it is impossible. If my hon. Friend will accept that, I think that is really a truthful presentation of the case. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) spoke about depreciation, and said it was evidenced in the case of an estate at Ballantrae, where farms have been sold which had no small holdings on them, and another farm which had six or seven small holdings found no purchaser.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The whole farm has been broken up into small holdings.
    Mr. TENNANT: It may be true, and I suppose in many cases it is true, that there is some depreciation on a farm owing to the fact that small holdings have been placed upon it. I do not know why, but that seems to be almost agreed. I do not think the illustration given by the hon. Baronet is a very good one because I know, and he must know, many cases of estates which have been sold lately. The Hutton Estate, in Berwickshire, of which I was the tenant for eighteen or nineteen years, was sold this year, and there were no small holdings on it. They are all big farms. They were all put up together at the same time, last November. Three of them were sold in November and four were not. Two or three of them were again sold in January, although one or two were not. It is not because there were no small holdings, because there were no small holdings in any case. There is a preference for one farm as against another. Indeed, the very best of the land on that estate I should have thought would be the Eddington Estate, which is a famous farm of 1,300 acres, and that was not sold until the last. All the others were sold first. I will just touch upon the question of the help given by the servants of the Board
    1128
    of Agriculture to the tribunals under the Military Service Act. My hon. Friend (Mr. Morton) asked me to look into that. I have looked into it, and it comes to this, that the Board of Agriculture has, with great foresight, set about to ascertain the facts of any individual farm upon which a man has been called up who is seeking to be exempted on the ground of indispensability. The representatives of the Board of Agriculture have gone to the Appeal Tribunal. They could not go to the local tribunal because there was not a sufficient staff. They attended the Appeal Tribunal and gave evidence, and it worked admirably, and I think they have rendered material assistance to the military representatives and to the agricultural population in the work which they have carried on. My hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) made a complaint that the Report of the Board of Agriculture did not contain a statement as to the funds, and the expenditure of the funds, in the manner in which previous Reports had recorded the facts. There has been great pressure from the Treasury not to occupy large quantities of printing space and to economise in money and in the time of the staff, and in obedience to that appeal from the Treasury the alteration was made.
    Mr. MOLTENO: It is very inconvenient.
    Mr. TENNANT: I will see if it is one of those economies which is worth making or not. With regard to the limitations of loans, I am informed that loans are not invariably demanded by persons whose demand is one that you want particularly to comply with. Very often loans are asked for by thriftless men and persons who are not deserving of very great consideration. I do not say that is invariably the case, but it occurs. Furthermore, there are about 50,000 small holders in Scotland, and loans for the purpose have been limited to the congested districts. It was feared that if one went further afield and gave indiscriminately, very large sums of money would be taken out by those men, and one did not want to deplete the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund to a very large extent for this purpose unless there was very good reason for it.
    Mr. WATSON: Is not the limitation referred to on page 13 of the Report?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not like to give an answer off-hand without consulting my advisers, but I should think that that is not untrue.
    Mr. WATSON: I do not understand it.
    Mr. TENNANT: If that is the only passage the hon. Member does not understand, he is a very fortunate person—I am not referring to any particular obscurities in this Report, I am referring to Blue Books generally. I cannot pass by the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Young) in silence. On the contrary, I am much obliged to him for his interesting remarks, with which I am largely in agreement. There is only one complaint he made which I cannot agree with. He thinks it is something almost in the nature of a scandal that we have set on foot no inquiry into the manner in which we can settle persons on the land. It is the business of the Board of Agriculture daily and hourly to think about it.
    Mr. YOUNG: Why did the English Board set up a Committee for the express purpose?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not necessary to have inquiries except by our own officers, but they are inquiring day by day and hour by hour. Before I die, I will give my hon. Friend and the House the fruits of our inquiries. My hon. Friends blamed themselves, the representatives for Scotland, for the fact that no progress had been made in this matter. I do not think they really have any grounds for making any such complaint at all. They say their critical faculties have been silenced. That is due to the brilliancy of the administration of the Department for which I am responsible—not mine, but that of my officials and my predecessor. My hon. Friend went on to say he hoped we should find some non-controversial scheme to create a prosperous and contented peasantry, and he asked for my support. I will give him my support at once with no stinted hand—with both hands. I hope we may find such a scheme.
    Mr. YOUNG: Will my right hon. Friend give this Committee which has been appointed the assistance, not only of the Scottish Office and its officials, but also of the Board of Agriculture? Will he give the Committee his assistance and all the information they may require?
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not really know what Committee my hon. Friend is alluding to, but I shall never deny any assistance which it is in my power to give him. Now I come to the scheme which we have under consideration. There is a scheme alluded to by my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) within his own constituency near Tain. I am not able to announce to-day that that scheme is an actual accomplished fact. It is a scheme for retaining men, and we view it with great sympathy. I am on the eve of coming to a decision, but I cannot possibly announce it to-day because all the materials for which I have asked have not yet been delivered, but I hope, in the course of a very few days, to give an absolute decision on that scheme. We have agreed upon a much larger scheme, which is known as the Craibstone scheme, near Aberdeen. It is an estate of about 2,000 acres. It is hoped that it will be able to employ twenty soldiers or men who are free to undertake the business at once on felling timber, and twenty other men on afforestation generally. Twenty more men may be accommodated on agricultural work. That is the Craibstone scheme, which we want to get on with as fast as we can. I shall be able to give more particulars and details about it later on. Still, that is a scheme by which we shall be able to employ sixty-five men.
    I come now to a scheme which is of great interest, because I think it is a novelty, so far as I am aware. I am glad to be able to announce that the Duke of Sutherland has been good enough to offer to the State a gift of absolute conveyance, reserving only to himself and his successors the fishing upon lochs and rivers on the park. This is an estate of 12,000 acres, and these are the terms upon which the Duke of Sutherland has been good enough to make this gift that I have accepted:
    "The farm is to be used for the settlement of sailors and soldiers who have been on foreign service and who have volunteered without compulsion and have a good record of foreign service. Not less than one-half of the holding shall be allotted to sailors who have seen foreign service or who have served in the North Sea, or elsewhere along the coast of the United Kingdom. The selection of the settlers shall be in the hands of the Secretary of Scotland, with the understanding that he will consult the Duke, at any rate, regarding the first selection. In the selection of the holders preference will be given to men who are in good physical condition, but partially disabled men will not be altogether excluded from consideration. The terms and conditions under which the land shall be held will be left to the Secretary of Scotland, subject to the general under-

    1131
    standing that the first settlers will be considerately dealt with in view of their services to the country." (That is to say we shall be empowered to charge rent, but to treat the men considerately.) "Part of the land, say, from 5,000 to 6,000 acres, will be afforestered by the State, and the holders will be given employment from time to time in planting and other forest operations. The Duke's scheme, as already stated, is for the settlement on the land of those people who have done service for their country, combined with an afforestation scheme which would provide labour for the settlers out with their actual holdings and within easy reach of them. The existing rights of peat cutting, exercised by tenants on the adjoining lands, will be continued. The existing march fences will be maintained at the sole expense of the State, and the Duke and his successors will not be called upon to erect or contribute towards any new fences that are required by the State upon the marches with his Grace's adjoining land."
    I ought to say that the Duke was prepared to remove the sheep stock from the farms, but it was agreed, on my representation, that the sheep stock should remain on the farm and that the State should purchase it, and also cattle, horses, and the whole equipment, together with the furniture in the shooting lodge, on terms to be mutually agreed upon. I will come to the finance a little later; but I want it to be clearly understood it was at our request that the stock was left, because we want to proceed with the regular agricultural operations of the farm. It was agreed that acclimatisation should not be an element in the price of the sheep stock. The conveyance of the property and the delivery of the stock and equipment are to take place as at Martinmas, 1916. The Duke of Sutherland agrees that the State may form a light railway between the farm of Borgie and the harbour at Skerray, over the estate of his Grace, subject to the condition that the line will be mutually approved and that the State will compensate his Grace's tenants in respect of the land taken, provided his Grace is in possession of the land if and when the State decide to make the railway.
    I should like to be allowed to convey to the Duke of Sutherland the very warm thanks of this House and of all parties for his most patriotic and most munificent gift. I do not think I need go into the details of finance, but, roughly, it comes to this, that capital expenditure in the first two years on stock and afforestation will come to about £20,000. After fifteen or sixteen years, returns from the woodlands will begin. Of course, there will be returns from small holders. I ought to say that the equipment and building of twenty holdings is included in the £20,000. After fifteen or sixteen years, returns from woodlands begin. From then onwards there will be a repayment of the capital invested, and
    1132
    that capital will ultimately be repaid in full, with the addition of compound interest at the rate of at least 4 per cent. If the present price of timber had been taken, the return would have been much larger. I hope the House will agree with me that is a very fine offer, and very promising for the future of forestry and of putting soldiers on the land.
    Mr. YOUNG: Is not this practically an experiment in State ownership?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is a transfer of the duke's property to the State, and, in so far as it is that, of course it is State-owned.
    Mr. YOUNG: Can the right hon. Gentleman get other landlords to follow the example of the Duke of Sutherland?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was just going to say I would extend a very hearty invitation to all the lairds who are my friends, and to all others whom I have not the honour of knowing, to do likewise. We should be glad to spend money in the way we propose to do in this scheme. I am sure it would not only redound enormously to their credit if they did so, but very much to the benefit of the State. I ought to say a word of praise, which I hope will be endorsed by the Committee, of the wide range of the Board of Agriculture's work. I would particularly like to draw attention to their live stock scheme, which has done very good work. The War Office are indebted to the Board of Agriculture for improving the breed of pedigree horses and of artillery horses, and also light horses. We ought not to forget the humble hen, and the improvement in the breeding of poultry. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised in the Debate. The only point which occurs to me now that I have not touched upon is the comparison made between our country and the neighbouring island of Ireland. The cases are not on all fours at all. In one case you are endeavouring to put small holders on holdings which do not exist; in the other case you are expropriating proprietors, and are putting men upon existing holdings in exactly the same form in which they exist at present. Therefore the cases are not comparable. I would, therefore, suggest to my hon. Friends who have endeavoured to make them comparable that they are not so, and that the figures of 1,200,000, or whatever it was in Ireland, and 200,000 for Scotland, cannot be put in the same category at all.
    Mr. MOLTENO: May I say the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in regard to that, because the 1,000,000 does nothing to make holders of land. It is purely administration money. It is not capital meant to provide land.
    Mr. TENNANT: Therefore it goes largely in salaries of officials in developing agriculture. I would much rather spend money, if I may be allowed to say so, upon the settling of persons on the land than in the payment of large numbers of official salaries. I endeavour, if I can, to economise in officials, and to use all my energies in trying to come to an agreement without the lengthy interminable business of courts of arbitration and so forth. I like to come to an agreement if I can with landlords in regard to schemes for increasing the numbers of small holders on the land. If I can do that, I shall indeed count myself fortunate. If I cannot do it without a large expenditure at present I am sure my hon. Friends will not ascribe it to want of good will. It may be properly ascribed to the existing condition of the country. Owing to the War we have an enormous increase in the cost of everything, and if we cannot expedite the number of persons who are desirous of being placed upon the land at once, it is not due to want of good will. I am certainly keeping a very vigilant eye upon all the possibilities which are presenting themselves, and I cam promise the House this, that any scheme which seems to me to present a fair prospect of the small holder being able to be put on and to make a living out of the land—not, perhaps, without hard work, but which still would give him a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution of agricultural work—will not be neglected.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am sure the members of the Committee will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his first statement as Secretary for Scotland. With the greater part of the announcements he has made, I am quite sure that his colleagues are highly delighted, and in particularly I think it is only fair that a Radical Member should take the opportunity of joining in the congratulations upon the splendid offer of the Duke of Sutherland. We all equally join with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tennant) in expressing the hope that some of the other Scottish lairds may be induced to go and do likewise. There are only two other points to which I wish to refer in my right hon. Friend's speech. In
    1134
    the first place, I think that he did not deal with the question of the Grant in the way which we hoped he would have dealt with it. Undoubtedly we have been losing for two years money which should have gone for the purpose of the development of small holdings in Scotland. That money has been refused at a time of vast expenditure, at a time when it is easier to get money out of the Treasury than it is likely to be in the period immediately following the War. We therefore, so far as Scottish agriculture is concerned, are falling into arrears, and we may take it as certain that when the time of borrowing money is over and the time of simply paying interest comes, it will be absolutely impossible to obtain these arrears from the Treasury for the purposes of land settlement. The policy which I therefore commend to my right hon. Friend is this: That even though it is impossible now to spend, he should impress upon the Treasury the importance of, as it were, building up a reserve now for these purposes which will then be so essential in the national interests, and he should be further encouraged in his demands upon the Treasury when he remembers that his immediate predecessor is now at the Treasury, and as we have been assured, will see eye to eye with him in this matter of the essential necessity of obtaining this money for Scotland.
    The other point to which I wished to refer was that while my right hon. Friend has been able to speak of schemes being further developed, the only schemes to which he referred in his speech this afternoon were schemes relating to the North. I think that there is one scheme in Ross and Cromarty, and another in Aberdeen, and there is the further opportunity opened out by the Duke of Sutherland's offer. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend as a South country Member to have some regard for the Southern counties. After all, the Lowland counties open up opportunities for smallholders, which, to say the least of it, are better than those which exist in Northern counties. Opportunities for successful cultivation in respect of soil and of market are better in the South than in the North. The chance of success for smallholders are much better on account of the easier access to markets. In these circumstances I hope that in the course of his first year of office he will be able to initiate something in the South, and if it is not possible to take the first practical steps that at least his assistants in the Board of Agriculture will be able to

    1135
    lay down the lines of some scheme of colonisation in the South, because we believe that there, even more than in the North, there are opportunities for land settlement on thoroughly successful lines. These are the only criticisms which I have to offer, and I conclude by once more congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the useful statement which he has made.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am not sure that I go quite so far as my hon. Friend in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his first appearance as Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Not Secretary of State.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is one of the grievances which we have, that Scotland has not a Secretary of State. I do not blame my right hon. Friend personally, because none of his colleagues could expect within the short period in which he has been in the Scottish Office that he can have made himself wholly conversant with the very many duties devolving upon him as Secretary for Scotland, and I am perfectly certain that when he has had the opportunity of dealing with the different Departments in the Scottish Office he will feel himself very much more able to deal with the multifarious problems that come before Scottish Members. I do congratulate him on his promotion to the Cabinet, from the personal point of view. He knows that; but I do not think that we should delude ourselves to-day that we are getting any "forrader" with Scottish affairs because compliments have been flying about the House. We are still at the first Vote, and there are yet ten or eleven Scottish Votes to come, which is a point in favour of the claim that we frequently make that one day is absolutely insufficient to deal with Scottish affairs in anything like an adequate fashion, because no one can for a moment claim that we have covered anything like the subjects that ought to be covered, or got anything like the information which we ought to have got with regard to very many interesting points concerning our own country.
    Look, for instance, at page 42 of the Fourth Report of the Board of Agriculture. There is a very romantic story told about an effort which is being made to develop the native dyeing industry in Scotland. It was thought fit some time ago in this House to take over a very large
    1136
    industry in this country of England, and if I remember rightly a Scotsman was given the task of taking it under his control. I do not know how far that has succeeded, but in Scotland, according to this Report, this industrial investigation is being undertaken, and certain statements have been made, but so far we have had no information as to the result. It says that towards the end of the year steps were being taken to obtain the services of a few botanists and chemists respectively. I would ask my right hon. Friend if any further progress has been made in what seems to be an extremely interesting experiment. I notice it says here that a trained botanist must be employed, because, in the case of the lichens, it is essential, owing to the fact that there are over 700 kinds. Members know that the whole Highlands of Scotland are now closed for some purpose or other—I do not know for what purpose—beyond Inverness. I do not know whether this is the explanation, but I would like to know how far this investigation has gone. Has the Board of Agriculture got this botanist and this chemist? Is this only a fancy experiment, or a genuine attempt on the part of the Board of Agriculture to promote a Highland industry? I ask that because of the results which have happened in regard to another industry, in which a great many of us were interested —the kelp industry in the Western Highlands and Islands.
    There, again, you have an industry which is native to Scotland, the development of which would supply very many necessary things that the country as a whole has missed during the operations of this War. I notice that the Report on that industry on this occasion is not nearly so good as it was on a previous occasion, for reasons which are explained. I can understand the shortage of labour and the effect that it would have on the development of this industry. If I remember rightly, certain moneys were spent in promoting the kelp industry in the West—in laying down roads, and so on. I think that in one case there was some talk about developing a harbour. I would like to know if that is being kept up, even while, owing to the sacrifices which the people have made in their services for the War, the labour is not sufficient for the moment. Going through this Report there is an extraordinary number of interesting subjects, which I do not propose to touch on because there are ten other Votes, but I

    1137
    want to emphasise the point that even though we have spent three or four hours on this Vote, we have by no means touched the fringe of the subject even after the speech which we have heard from my right hon. Friend. But I want to ask for more particulars about this gift from the Duke of Sutherland. Like those Members who have referred to it, I can appreciate the fact of the gift. I think that it is extremely generous to offer so much land to the State, but I want to be quite clear as to what we are doing. We have had a number of offers before in this House: we had one recently, not connected with Scotland, an offer of a stud farm in Ireland and in this country, and a number of horses, which created certain discussions.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Only the stud.
    Mr. HOGGE: The offer created certain discussions in this House, and certainly the House ought to know at once what all the terms are in connection with this offer. I do not think it very advisable to have any discussion raised about a gift of this kind after it is settled, and as this is the first occasion on which it has been mentioned—my right hon. Friend apparently keeping it as the surprise packet of his speech, to announce to the House to-day that this offer had been made—I do not think that he gave us enough particulars about it. I am not sure that I quite understand what use is going to be made of it. I take it that he, as Secretary for Scotland, has accepted the offer. I do not know how far he has got authority to do that; I do not know on what fund he will place the expense of the offer without some discussion about it, and there may be items connected with it which will lead to discussion. I notice incidentally that the fishings were reserved. That may be a source of difficulty in administering those small holdings. If the Duke of Sutherland retains the rights of fishing on these 12,000 acres, you get all sorts of questions arising if those fishings are let to other people in the fishing season, who come up into that particular part of the country and probably raise difficulties which may later on in this House create discussion. I would ask my right hon. Friend: Are the 12,000 acres given entirely free of all charges? Is it costing the State anything to take them over?
    Mr. TENNANT: I gave the figures to the Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: I took them down, but I have not got that figure. My right hon. Friend says that it is going to cost £20,000 for the next two years, and after that it is going to cost £1,400 a year for the next fourteen years, and probably in the fifteenth year we would begin to get some return from the afforestation. Those are the figures which my right hon. Friend gave.
    Mr. TENNANT: And at the end of that time we should begin to get repayment of the capital invested, and the whole capital would ultimately be repaid with the addition of compound interest at 4 per cent.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is the £20,000, I suppose. If that is Scottish money which is paid for equipping this estate and we are going to repay ourselves the £20,000 with 4 per cent. interest that is a very excellent transaction, but the question which I am asking is—is this estate being handed over to us now free of all cost?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is costing us nothing to accept the estate, and the only thing that is retained, is the fishing on the estate?
    Mr. TENNANT: And the furniture in the house.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am not worrying about that. I only want to be sure as to whether there is any condition attached which involves the payment of money. I am very glad that there is not. I want to have that clear, because I do not think that it is a good thing to discuss these things afterwards, when we ought to settle them straight away. The other point I want to put is as to who is going to use this land. My hon. Friend has said the soldiers and sailors, but will any soldiers and sailors be able to make application to the Scottish Board of Agriculture to be placed on that land, or will they be able to be placed on the land through any other schemes that are being formed to deal with soldiers and sailors. I want to be clear about a point of that kind. I take it that the men who have to go on this estate will apply in the same way as small holders apply for small holdings, and that under the regular existing machinery they will have preference on this particular estate, inasmuch as they happen to be soldiers and sailors, and that this may either apply to men who are wounded

    1139
    and who have recovered and desire to go on to the land, or to men who have not been wounded but wish to return to the land. If that be so, and if my right hon. Friend puts it in that way, then I think it is quite clear, and we will be able to agree. When we get a case of this kind difficulties may arise, and it is very much better to be clear about the whole matter, and that it should not be necessary to come afterwards and say that another estimate is wanted, that so much money is required in this particular case because such and such a thing has been forgotten, or because certain things must be paid for. I give my right hon. Friend fair warning that I consider it is settled on that basis, and on that basis it is an extremely generous gift, which I am very glad he has had, as Secretary for Scotland, the honour to accept, and I hope that he will make very excellent use of it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SCOTTISH LAND COURT.—Class III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,853, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Scottish Land Court." [NOTE.—£3,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not intend to detain the House on this Vote, and really I would much rather say nothing about it, but as it has been proposed I would like to state that the operations of the Land Court remain as obscure to me as ever, and that neither I nor anyone else has the slightest idea of the principles on which they are acting. They have not, so far as I know, made any attempt to enlighten us on any of the points which have been more than once raised in this House. For example, on the question of the reduction of rents, in the first few years of the operation of this particular Act, rents were reduced by various percentages. At present agriculture has enormously advanced in prosperity, and farmers are making huge profits. I know a farm, the rent of which is £300, and the management of which is run by the farmer himself, yet the rent which he is paying is no more, though his profits have greatly increased, and I think he secured a net profit of £750 in one year.
    1140
    When hay is £7 a ton and barley 55s., and other produce is at high prices, agriculture must be very flourishing indeed. But the rents still remain the same, and the old terms continue in face of all that. I only mention these things in order to show the inexplicable state of these matters. Why so few arrangements are made by agreement in Scotland, and why so much in the way of dispute is referred to arbitration, entirely arises, I fear, from the fact that during the whole course of the administration of the Land Act in Scotland the Land Court has so acted as to depreciate public confidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I will say depreciated the confidence of the landlords, with the result that all these questions which arise go to arbitration instead of the parties making their own settlement.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,544,742, 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, 1917, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland." [NOTE.—£1,000,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I desire to raise a subject of great—I might almost say fundamental—importance as regards secondary education in Scotland. It is raised apropos of the new university Ordinance dealing with regulations as to preliminary examinations which now lies on the Table of this House. At first sight it might seem that the university Ordinance was not germane to this Vote, but the aspect of it with which I wish to deal is entirely that aspect of it that affects secondary education in Scotland. I hope to show that it not merely affects secondary education; it really interpenetrates through the whole subject of secondary education. This Ordinance deals with the regulations as to the preliminary examination for the four Scottish universities—that is to say, the method whereby entrance to the university is secured. The preliminary examination, or system, or whatever it is, that controls entrance to the universities is really the link between secondary and higher-grade schools and the universities. It is a thing which does not concern the universities alone; it is a

    1141
    thing which concerns secondary education; it is really the keystone in the arch, lying between secondary education on the one side and universities on the other. If I desire to prove the relations between the two, and the extent to which this particular matter affects secondary education. I think I need do no more than recall the Report of the Universities Commission which was made in the' year 1900. The University Commissioners were a body appointed by the Scottish Universities Act of 1889. They were appointed in order to carry out that Act, and to put into force its provisions. Their function has now been fulfilled, the mandate is exhausted, and that body has ceased to exist. But that was the body that carried the Act into operation, and was the body which made the existing Regulations which control entrance to our universities; and in their Report, made in the year 1900, they state that they had exhaustively considered this question of preliminary examination so far as it concerned the development of secondary education in Scotland.
    At that time our universities in Scotland were doing a large amount of work which was not strictly university work. You had the junior and middle classes in Latin and Greek and mathematics, which were really not university work at all, but which were the work of a secondary school. The Commissioners, at the first step, were confronted with this problem of drawing a clear line of demarcation between the province of the universities and the province of secondary education. They were confronted with the task of erecting some barrier, or some line of demarcation between the secondary schools and the universities which would secure that every person who entered the university had received a satisfactory preliminary education that would prepare him to derive full benefit from the instruction provided in the university. They considered the question at that time of establishing a barrier in the form of a stiff examination, but they decided not to adopt that course. They decided that it was far too drastic, that it would operate with great hardship in view of the then development of education in Scotland. It must be confessed that the condition of secondary education in Scotland at that time was not adequate. There was nothing to fill the gap, or to fill the part which the junior classes in the university had played for many years. The essence of their pronouncement was this:
    1142
    "The first condition of erecting a barrier at the university gate is the existence of an adequate system of secondary education, and we have satisfied ourselves that at this time the provision of secondary education throughout the country is not as yet sufficient to satisfy that condition."
    They, therefore, drew up a system for controlling entrance to the universities, and that system is embodied in the existing ordinance which it is now sought to replace. The system which they instituted then was frankly and avowedly a provisional system in view of the then imperfect development of secondary education in Scotland. There were two features of it. There was, first of all, the preliminary examination, which might be taken in stages, and need not be taken all at once; and, secondly, there was the provision fixing the standard of the preliminary examination which controls entrance to the universities, to be no less than the then standard of the leaving certificate provided by the Scottish Education Department. The then leaving cerficate was taken as the minimum standard for the examination which controlled entrance to the universities. I want to make it clear that the provision then made by the Commissioners in the ordinance which now governs the universities of Scotland, was in their view a wholly provisional arrangement, and not a final determination of the subject. Their view was that when secondary education had developed to a higher level, the whole subject should be reviewed in regard to the new development of secondary education. I desire to quote a passage from the Report of the Scottish University Commission made in 1900 to show that in their view the provisions which were then made governing the entrance to the university were entirely temporary, and, to be regarded as provisional and not permanent. They said "We believe—"
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): So far as I have been able to gather from the hon. Member's remarks his arguments only touch the question as to whether the leaving certificate of secondary schools in Scotland is a sufficiently high standard for entrance to the universities. I do not think he has carried it any further. I do not wish to be pedantic as to points of Order or to prevent useful discussion, but I am very much afraid that the hon. Member's argument is developing into one which is covered by Vote 8 and deals with universities throughout the United Kingdom. I do not know

    1143
    whether there is anyone on the Front Bench sufficiently acquainted with the matter to answer the criticisms which the hon. Member desires to make. I do not want to take too narrow a view, but I must safeguard myself for the future by the protest I have made.
    Mr. TENNANT: On the point of Order. I understand that my hon. Friend is directing his arguments mainly to a criticism of the Ordinance which is now before Parliament.
    Mr. SCOTT: Not to the Ordinance in general.
    Mr. TENNANT: That is an ingenious method of bringing it into order.
    Mr. SCOTT: No, no.
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not want to impute any motives. This Ordinance is a matter which has to be dealt with, if at all, by this House by means of an Address to His Majesty praying that he may be pleased or not pleased to issue an Order in Council putting it in force. I submit that as Secretary for Scotland I have no real jurisdiction in the matter except in so far as I am a member of the Privy Council and of the Committee of Education of the Privy Council, and in that capacity I am one of a number of others. I have no control over these matters in the sense that I am presumed to have control over the Board of Agriculture.
    Sir H. CRAIK: It goes before the University Committee of the Privy Council. Are you a member of that Committee?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, but of the Education Committee.
    Sir H. CRAIK: It has nothing to do with this.
    Mr. TENNANT: Excuse me, it has. I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. Being only a member of that body, I have no real jurisdiction, and I submit it cannot be discussed.
    Mr. SCOTT: I think the right hon. Gentleman has raised a fresh point of Order, and I will deal with the two separately.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will hear the hon. Member.
    Mr. SCOTT: With regard to the point which you, Sir, raised, rather tentatively, I think, as to whether a discussion of the
    1144
    aspect of this ordinance as it affects secondary education is in order or not, let me put this point: There are three classes of education in Scotland, preliminary, secondary, and university education. There must be some line of demarcation between each of those, and this ordinance raises the line of demarcation between secondary and university education. At present the line of demarcation is fixed by reference to the leaving certificate examination, and the standard must be not lower than the standard of a pupil who has completed his course of education at the secondary school. This ordinance completely reverses that and enables a new standard for entrance to the university to be fixed. I submit that secondary education in Scotland is profoundly affected by the standard of entrance to the university, and if that standard is changed there will be profound changes in the whole of secondary education in Scotland in order to conform with that new standard and to prepare pupils to enter the universities. I do not propose to discuss the matter at all so far as it affects purely university matters, but to confine it to that aspect which concerns secondary education. With regard to the wholly different point of Order raised by the right hon. Gentleman, as to the proper procedure for raising this question, certainly, if it can be done, it is to move that a humble Address be presented to His Majesty, asking him to withhold his consent. Whether that is done or not, after the Ordinance leaves the House and goes to the Privy Council, my right hon. Friend, though he has not a determining voice, will yet have a powerful say in this matter. He is the guardian and custodian of secondary education, and if it is true, as I contend it is, that secondary education is affected by this Ordinance, then it is his duty, as the head of the Department, to look into the matter and to make such representations as he thinks desirable to the Privy Council. That is clearly not only within his province, but it is his duty. Therefore, I submit I am in order in raising the matter in the limited extent to which I propose to do so.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I observe that the hon. Member has himself put down a notice of Motion that an Address be presented to His Majesty, praying him to withhold his consent to the Ordinance, and I suppose he hopes to get a day for its discussion.
    Mr. SCOTT: We have not got it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are other opportunities. Clearly a discussion of that is not in order on this Vote. Any discussion which the hon. Member desires to make with regard to secondary schools, as to whether there is a sufficient number of pupils, and whether they are taking advantage of proceeding to the universities, and also the question of the leaving certificates, would be in order. The standard which the universities set for entrance, and matters relating thereto, obviously cannot be in order in discussing Votes which relate to the elementary and secondary schools. In so far as the hon. Member can keep himself to discussing secondary schools and their relation to the entrance to universities, his remarks will be in order. I am most desirous, on this one day devoted to Scottish Estimates, not to be pedantic in points of Order, and with that warning I will allow the hon. Member to continue.
    Mr. SCOTT: I propose now to read the quotation which I was about to give when the point of Order was raised. It is from the Report of the Scottish Universities Commission, made in the year 1900, with reference to the system of controlling entrance to the universities. They state:
    "We believe this to be the best arrangement that can be made in the present condition of secondary education in Scotland, but we should think it far from satisfactory if it were to be regarded as final and permanent. The object of all such arrangements should be to secure that before he begins his university course a boy should have been for a certain number of years under good and trained teaching. This cannot be secured by a mere examination, although an examination at the end of the school course may be a very useful test of his training. We do not consider that either the entrance examination or a certificate which can be obtained in single subjects can be an adequate test of school training, and we do not think it desirable that the junior classes should be a permanent part of the university equipment. In both these respects, therefore, the regulations we have framed may be usefully revised when good secondary schools have been made available throughout Scotland."
    In the years that have passed since that pronouncement we have had most remarkable developments of secondary education throughout Scotland. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) has, although he sits on the opposite side, it must be confessed, played a large and beneficent part in the development of secondary education in Scotland. I think he was the inaugurator of the leaving certificate examination which has now attained such importance, and the good work which he inaugurated, and which has been developed by his suc-
    1146
    cessors, has completely changed the whole aspect of affairs with regard to secondary and higher education in Scotland.
    Mr. HOGGE: For the worse.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. SCOTT: That is a matter of opinion. I believe that there has been a very remarkable and very satisfactory development of secondary education in Scotland. I believe it can be usefully maintained that the time has now come when this scheme may be revised chiefly on account of the manifold new problems specially concerned with secondary education which have cropped up and emerged during the War, and which will confront us immediately after the War. Who is to do it? Who is to revise this demarcation of secondary education? Who is to say when a pupil in a secondary school has attained such a stage of proficiency and of general education that he is capable of benefiting to the full from a university course? I submit that that is a point which ought to be defined, not by the representatives of the universities alone, but by a much wider body embracing representatives of the whole educational system of the country. This is a point which does not concern the universities alone: it concerns equally secondary education and those who have a stake and an interest in secondary education and are engaged in carrying it out. These ought to have a voice in settling this line of demarcation. By whom has this new Ordinance recasting the whole system been submitted? It has been submitted not by any educational authority in the country, not by any body on which the interests of secondary education are represented, but by the four University Courts of Scotland Far be it from me to say anything detrimental to the University Courts of Scotland. On occasion I would be prepared to defend the University Courts against some charges. I say, however, that a Court consisting predominantly of university professors with life appointments is not a proper body to determine when the work of the secondary school has been completed. How would this new Ordinance change the position as regards secondary schools? There are many subjects which might be discussed on the proper occasion, but I will confine myself to the one aspect concerning secondary education. In the existing Ordinance, the minimum standard entitling a pupil to enter the university is fixed as the standard of the leaving certificate examination at the time the Ordi-

    1147
    nance was made. What is the new standard proposed to be set up by this Ordinance? It shall be the duty of the body appointed by the University Courts to fix their own standard without any reference to secondary education at all. That is among their duties. In Clause 6 (3) we come to their powers. They have powers
    "to accept passes on the standards of particular grades in the leaving certificate examination of the Scottish Education Department as equivalent to passes on the corresponding standards in the preliminary examination—"
    Mark this—
    "provided the Board is satisfied that the standards in the leaving certificate examination are not lower than the corresponding standards in the preliminary examination."
    That reverses the whole position. Under the present system the leaving certificate is the minimum standard, and the preliminary examination is to be not lower than the leaving certificate. But under the new standard proposed to be set up the courts can fix a standard of their own, but they may accept the leaving certificate if satisfied that it is not lower than the preliminary. There is nothing to prevent the preliminary from being much lower than the leaving certificate. There is no safeguard whatever in this Ordinance against that. Therefore we might have some reactionary court fixing a standard which would bring us back to the old evil days when the universities were doing the work of the secondary schools, when the universities might be poaching on the province of secondary education to the detriment of a sound educational system in Scotland such as we now have. I contend, by reversing the position in the way they have done, they have fundamentally affected the position of secondary education in Scotland. Obviously this is a matter which ought not to be determined by the courts alone as it is determined in this Ordinance. This is an Ordinance which has been framed by the courts entirely on their own responsibility. It is a matter in regard to the framing of which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have a full voice. He is the custodian and guardian of secondary education in Scotland, and I submit that it is not only his province, but his duty to secure that in whatever Ordinance is passed the magnificent
    1148
    structure of secondary education which has been built up during the past generation should be adequately safeguarded and protected. The Commission which framed the existing system of entrance to the university has now completed its function; it is defunct. Let there be a new Commission appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever is the proper authority, representing not merely the universities, but also the interests of secondary education, and indeed of all the educational interests concerned, and let this matter be deferred until that Commission has presented its report. There is in the Ordinance the germ of a better state of affairs—the germ of the true course of development. Among the powers given to the University Courts is the following:
    "To enter into negotiations with the Scotch Education Department for the purpose of framing an agreement for co-operation in respect of the conduct or correlation of the preliminary and leaving certificate examinations."
    That is as it should be—consultation between the University authorities and the Scottish Education Department. But that useful suggestion, that germ, as I have described it, is immediately assassinated by a germicide which follows in the next sentence—
    "Provided that such agreement shall not become operative until it has been approved by a joint Resolution in which the four University Courts shall have concurred."
    Therefore this agreement between the Scottish Board of Education and the Universities for a scheme satisfactory to both to control the entrance to the Universities has got to run the gauntlet, not only of the Entrance Board set up by the Ordinance, but also of the four separate University Courts. It will probably never survive that process. I agree that the time has arrived for a revision. I think I have said enough to show that there are involved interests which have not been sufficiently taken into consideration in this Ordinance. My right hon. Friend suggested that the proper course of procedure would be to move an address. I have a Motion down for that purpose, but I do not know whether it will be possible to move it. That is the constitutional procedure; but the Government, under the stress of the War, have taken all the time of the House, and it is impossible to move that address unless the right hon. Gentleman uses his influence with the Prime

    1149
    Minister to secure that time be provided. I suggest that there is evidence of a general desire on the part of Scottish Members that this matter should at least be postponed. Last week there was a question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. E. Wason), who is a very representative man on the Liberal side of the House. The same question appeared also in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), whom I am glad to see in the Chair on this occasion. In that question it was stated that there are differences of opinion with regard to the terms of the Ordinance and the propriety of proceeding with a matter of such importance at the present time. I suggest that that question, asked by two such representative Members, is in itself evidence of a general desire in the matter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman as head of the Education Department whether he can give us any guarantee that the interests of secondary education will be adequately safeguarded, and, failing that, if he cannot give us a guarantee that the matter will be postponed, whether he will promise to use his influence with the Prime Minister to secure a day, or at any rate an opportunity, for the discussion of a matter so profoundly affecting the interests of secondary education in Scotland.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I desire to say a few words with regard to the effect which the hon. Member opposite apprehends this new Ordinance might have on secondary education in Scotland. I hope to be able to satisfy him and the Committee that instead of having any disadvantageous effect it will have an advantageous effect on that great cause in which Scotland takes so much interest. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member as to the importance of the subject. It is perfectly true, as he said, that some time ago, early in the last century, the Scottish Universities usurped to a great extent the position of the secondary schools, and that that has been remedied by the enormous extension of secondary education, in which my hon. Friend the Member for the Sister Universities (Sir H. Craik) has taken a distinguished part. I desire to say a very few words in regard to these provisions for secondary education with reference to this Ordinance, and the functions of the university. I believe it is impossible to
    1150
    define the functions of any preliminary examination such as the examination to which this Ordinance refers better than if the words used by the Commissioners in the Report of 1900, to which my hon. Friend has already referred. On page 14 of that Report, speaking of the preliminary examination, the Report says:
    "It ought not, therefore, to exact from candidates who have been reasonably well-taught any special preparation or effort, but—"
    Quoting Matthew Arnold—
    "ought to be such as a scholar of fair ability and proper diligence may at the end of his school course come to with a quiet mind, and without a painful preparatory effort tending to relaxation and torpor as soon as the effort is over."
    I am sure these are words that appeal to us who have passed examinations, and I believe they strike the one note of what a preliminary examination for the university should be. My hon. Friend is much concerned as to the possible lowering of the standard under this new Ordinance which is to be adopted for the purpose of the preliminary examination. I think I can satisfy him that he is mistaken in supposing that any such debasement of the standard of the preliminary examination is possible. It is, of course, in the very highest degree improbable—I think he has admitted it—that any entrance board would make any attempt to debase the standard of the preliminary examination in the manner which he suggested as possible. I think I can satisfy my hon. Friend that it is not only improbable, but that it is impossible. The Ordinance of 1892 provided that the standard for the preliminary examination should not be lower than that of the leaving certificate examination as existed when the Ordinance of 1892 was passed. My hon. Friend went on to point out that that proper provision does not appear in this new Ordinance. That is perfectly true. The provision does even better. The Ordinance of 1892 provided that the standard of the preliminary examination should not be lower than that in use in 1892 in regard to the leaving certificate. That secured that the standard for the preliminary examination should be equal to what the leaving certificate standard was in 1892. If my hon. Friend will look at the heads of this proposed new Ordinance, beginning with head 13, and running over 14, 15, 16 and 17, he will find that there is this provision—that it occurs over and over again. I will read the words taken from the first paragraph, in which it occurs as a sample of the whole. See head 13, Clause 2. I shall

    1151
    have to make a similar protest in regard to other subjects. The Clause reads:
    "In English the standard shall not be lower than that accepted at the date of the approval of this Ordinance for a pass in English in the preliminary examination."
    They make exactly the same provision for the other subjects with which the preliminary examination deals. My hon. Friend will see that that provision effectively secures that the standard for the preliminary examination shall not sink below the standard required by the Ordinance of 1892. On the contrary, in all probability in nearly every case it will secure that this standard is higher. If, as is the case of the preliminary examination at the time this Ordinance comes into force, it puts up the standard of the leaving certificate in 1892, it inevitably follows, from the provision to which I have called attention, that it is absolutely impossible that the standard of the preliminary examination under this new Ordinance should ever sink below the level of that standard to which all preliminary examinations had to conform since 1892. The matter, I think, is perfectly plain in the provisions of this Section to which I have called attention. If my hon. Friend has looked at the Ordinance he will recognise that there is no ground for apprehension on what, no doubt, is a matter of very great importance.
    There is another point in the bearing on this Ordinance on secondary education to which my right hon. Friend has called attention—the power to negotiate conferred upon the entrance board which is created by this Ordinance with the Scottish Education Department, with a view to correlation between the preliminary examination and the leaving certificate examination. That is to be found under Clause 6 of the proposed Ordinance, head 4. It is so important that I should like to read the words:
    "To enter into negotiations with the Scottish Education Department for the purpose of framing an agreement for co-operation in respect of the conduct or correlation of the preliminary and leaving certificates examination; provided that such agreement shall not become operative until it has been approved by a joint resolution in which the four university courts shall have concurred."
    As regards the first part of that Clause, it it perfectly clear that communications and negotiations with the Scottish Education Department will be enormously facilitated by having this one entrance board to carry them on. Negotiations will be much more
    1152
    effectively conducted by that one entrance board, representing the four universities, than it could be with negotiations carried on with each university separately. The object of this Clause is agreement on that most important subject of co-operation in respect to the conduct and correlation of preliminary and leaving certificate examinations—agreement between the Scottish Education Department and the universities. The preliminary steps, as I have shown, are enormously facilitated by having this one board. But, it may be said, the agreement, when it is drawn up, has not to have effect until the four university courts have passed a resolution concurring. Could anything be more reasonable? The university must have a voice in its own affairs. You cannot impose upon them any document embodying terms unless that agreement has been come to. Of course, an Act of Parliament may do anything; but I submit it would be in the highest degree unreasonable to attempt to take from the universities that power of dealing with a matter which so intimately concerns them. I have the highest esteem for the Scottish Education Department. I have in days past seen a good deal of its working, but I do protest against the idea that the Scottish Education Department has to have control of the four university courts. The universities have taken a long step forward by this Ordinance, which will facilitate co-operation and correlation, as regards the certificates to which reference has been made. My hon. Friend is quite mistaken when he supposes that there is anything in the nature of a retrograde step in that which this Ordinance promotes. On the contrary, it is a step forward, and a long step forward. I think it would be in the highest degree unreasonable to obliterate the second part of the fourth Section of head 6, to which I have been referring, which provides that the universities must be parties to the agreement before it takes effect.
    There is one other matter, which relates to the leaving certificate and the position it is to occupy in regard to the universities, on which I should like to say a word. Apprehension has been expressed that the new Ordinance puts the leaving certificate in some way or other in a less advantageous position in regard to entry to the university than it enjoyed before. I believe that is a complete mistake. The Ordinance of 1892 conferred on the universities power to accept the leaving certificate. They were not forced to accept

    1153
    it. It conferred on them power to accept it as a substitute for the preliminary examination, and it conferred on them also the power to accept any other examination they pleased as a substitute. The new Ordinance fuses into one Clause these two provisions which cover two Clauses in the Ordinance of 1892. The new provision is contained under Clause 5. It confers on the entrance board the following duties:
    "To decide as to the examinations which, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, it shall recognise as entitling to exemption from the whole or part of the preliminary examination; to take such steps as may be necessary to secure that examinations so recognised shall be equivalent in scope and standard to the preliminary examination; and to publish from time to time a list of recognised examinations."
    The position of the leaving certificate is not in the slightest degree prejudiced. Before, it was optional for the universities to accept it instead of the preliminary examination; it remains optional still, but it is in no worse position than it was under the Ordinance of 1892. This Ordinance is one that has been framed with the greatest possible care, after years of consideration and negotiation, and after the views of all the bodies and persons qualified to shed light on the subject had been obtained, and I hope I have been enabled to satisfy my hon. Friend and the Committee generally that there is no ground whatever for the apprehension that it will affect secondary education in Scotland otherwise than beneficially. Do not let us throw away the result which has been arrived at after the labour of so many years; do not let us part with the only possible solution of a difficult question. It is perfectly true that the provision of 1892 was recognised as being only temporary and subject to reconsideration as secondary education in Scotland developed. That reconsideration has now been given, and I do put it to the Committee that this new Ordinance will be beneficial to secondary education in Scotland, and there is no ground whatever for the apprehension which has been expressed as to any disadvantageous results flowing from it. I do put it to the Committee that it is not reasonable to suggest that Scottish universities should be made subject to the dictation of any Department, even so distinguished a Department as the
    1154
    Scottish Education Department. They must be allowed to have a voice, and a controlling voice, as to the terms on which entrance may be obtained to a university. You must always have a preliminary examination. It can never be replaced entirely by the leaving certificate, because there will always be a considerable number of cases of persons desiring to go to the university who have not had the advantage of education at a secondary school. The improvements in the constitution of the Board, in the power to control and set papers and to provide for uniform papers to all the four universities is most valuable, and, under these circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that his apprehensions are not well founded.
    Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. and learned Member who has just sat down is, I believe, my representative as a matter of fact in this House, as I have always had the pleasure of voting for the other candidate, when there was one, but never succeeded in returning him, and therefore, if I differ from the right hon. and learned Member in the attitude he has taken up in regard to this matter, I hope that he will forgive an unrepentant constituent. I do not look on this matter in the same way as the right hon. and learned Member, and I do not propose really to follow the rather detailed criticism of those Ordinances now, because I hope my hon. Friend will press this to another conclusion by moving for an Address to His Majesty, when we Scottish Members can discuss it after eleven o'clock some night, if a House can be kept for us for that purpose. I want to raise a cognate subject connected with the Ordinance which I pressed upon my right hon. Friend's predecessor in office as Secretary for Scotland, which was not taken advantage of then, and which I want to renew now that we have a different occupant of that office. I think the time has arrived, and is in fact overdue, when another Royal Commission ought to make an investigation into the whole system of Scottish education. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Govan still remains in the House among the few faithful, and I know this is a subject in which he is also very interested, and for which he feels there is a pressing need. Therefore, I am glad that he is in association with the Secretary for Scotland, which gives him special access to his ear, and I hope he will take the opportunity

    1155
    of impressing upon his right hon. Friend that the occasion is opportune for an investigation into our whole system of Scottish education.
    The other day in this House there was a long and very interesting Debate on English education. In that Debate regrets were expressed that in England they have not the advantages we have in Scotland, and it occurred to me, in listening to that Debate, that we might get into the habit of making too much of the phrase that we had educational advantages in Scotland superior to other parts of the country, and that because we thought that to be true we might leave uncriticised and unconsidered a system which is growing up in Scotland, owing to the many changes that are made in our educational system there, without any reference to Parliament at all by the Scottish Board of Education, which, we all remember, is not even quite under my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, because it has got a separate head, without any reference to the Scottish Secretary directly or to this House. Changes have grown up which are detrimental to the best interests of Scottish education. Our elementary school system in Scotland, I think, is very good and has improved out of hand, except that I do not think the universal use of inspection in our elementary schools in place of the old habit of examination is quite the best method of dealing with the progress of the child in the elementary stages of its education. I realise at once that examination frequently turns down pupils in our elementary schools, or at any rate frequently did in the past, who might reasonably have gone up. On the other hand, it sent a number up who ought to have been kept down. A system of inspection which is extremely casual means that in a great number of our elementary schools the children are moved about in a way which does not contribute to the maturer education of that child at all. I know schools in Scotland where His Majesty's inspectors from the Scottish Education Department have never been in the school for a couple of years at a time. The process now is that the inspector comes in and talks to pupils, perhaps looks at the copybooks and examines the work, and then gives a general impression of what he has seen. I know cases in which pupils have been moved up and down after an inspection by one of these inspectors who has not
    1156
    been a quarter of an hour in that particular school. I do not think that is right, and it is a kind of thing that may help to damage the very just reputation which Scotland has got for having a thorough education in the elementary stages.
    With regard to secondary education, I think that too much has been made in that respect in an attempt to centralise secondary education too far away from the homes of the children. This is a subject which has been discussed frequently before, and which could very well be discussed now at very great length. I do not propose to discuss it at length now, because at a time like this we may not get the same consideration of the question, but I do not want to lose sight of it. In our secondary system we have those schools so far removed from the homes of the children that they are being educated under circumstances which do not conduce to the best training of their minds. You have young children lodging in some of our central towns in Scotland for five days a week, and some children have to cycle long distances, owing to the fact that the schools are situated a long way from their homes. While I think a great deal can be said for our system of secondary education in Scotland, I have always regretted that in our ordinary village schools we cannot continue now the education we previously had in Scotland, and I regret that it is necessary to shift the children about in this way in order to mass them together to secure this secondary education. I do not say that the old system is the better one, but I say that the transition is too acute when it means that the children have to travel long geographical distances to get the advantages of this secondary education. From whatever point of view you approach the question we have just been discussing, I think it has a bearing on the whole of this problem. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Sir E. Finlay) said that the Education Department ought not to have control of the portals of the universities. I am not sure that they should not. In Scotland, what we want is to link up our system of education more completely than we have ever done before. We want it to be a perfectly easy process through the elementary school to the university, and, when you have conflicting authorities, as you have in the university codes, you are bound to have problems arising which, after all, do not conduce to

    1157
    a proper machinery for perfecting your system of education in Scotland. The leaving certificate examinations were an easier way than the preliminary examinations, because it was frequently necessary for anybody sitting in the preliminary examination, owing to the fact that they were poor, so far as this world's goods are concerned, to have the preliminary and the other examinations at the same time. Consequently, you have a couple of standards set up.
    I do think that we want to be very careful. On the one hand, you have the Scottish Education Department raising the level of the leaving certificate to a certain standard, and you have in competition the university courts saying that a certain standard must be put upon the preliminary examination. There are a great many questions concerned with the teacher which it is proper should be touched upon inside a period of twelve months. There is the fact that it is extremely difficult to get the best equipped teachers in Scotland to go into the rural districts and take the headmasterships of the small schools. I suppose hon. Members must have received many requests from teachers suggesting that they were about the best persons possible to occupy the new headmastership of Gretna. I have had a large number of letters myself asking who has that post in gift, or the party to whom they should apply, and suggesting that their qualifications are probably better than any other person we know. Now the salary offered at Gretna is less than £300—I think it is £250—but I have been surprised in looking at the qualifications and testimonials—and some of the applicants I know were at the university at the same time as myself—those men are forced into the posts in our rural districts at a very small salary, and they leave the larger towns with all the advantages that accrue from being in those towns, and it is going to be increasingly difficult to staff the schools in those places unless some change is made in the position of the teacher. I know that the teacher's salary is governed in many places by the School Board and the School Board Rate, and that many of our School Boards are the last people in the world to whom you would trust educational matters, although they are perfectly competent in the spending of their money. There are questions of that kind connected with the teacher, and a great many more which could properly be elaborated.
    1158
    The Scottish Educational Department will require to give increasing attention to the technical and industrial side of education. I gladly acknowledge the work that they have already done in that direction. Scotland is going to change so far as its population and its industrial life is concerned. You have growing up on the East side of Scotland, as the result of the provision of the new naval base and all that it entails, an enormous population of an entirely different kind, and that population will require to be catered for with a different type of education. That will also be the case if there remains after the War any substantial factory or industry in the neighbourhood of Gretna, and there are bound to remain on the West side of Scotland as the result of all the activities we have there now certain new industries for a considerable time. That kind of thing requires to be looked into. There are many men interested in education who could give their attention to this matter at a time when they are not worried about the effects that the changes may have. A great many of the male members of the staff in our Scottish schools are in the Army, as they are in other parts of the country, and temporary arrangements have been made for teaching. In the big cities the schools are often in the possession of the military, and you have a provision by which the children of two schools get their education in one school by taking relays morning and afternoon.
    After the War we shall be face to face with a situation which will require a different kind of education from that which has been given before, and I am sure my right hon. Friend would be doing a service to Scottish education if he did something in this direction. I have suggested a Royal Commission, but I am not sure if it would be the best way. My right hon. Friend, as the result of the knowledge gained by the inquiries of certain Committees which have been set up by the English Education Department, may have something to suggest. I do not want us to forget the subject of education in Scotland simply because we have a tradition as a nation for being provided with excellent educational facilities. We must not get it into our heads that we can live on that tradition. Scotland has the brains, the energy, and the aptitude to meet the new conditions, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not leave us in the wake of the English Education Department, but that he will

    1159
    realise that there are educational problems which require to be dealt with in Scotland and that he will give his attention to them.
    Mr. TENNANT: The Committee will have gathered that I did not think this was the moment for a discussion of the merits of the Ordinance, and that if it were to be discussed we should deal with it on a different occasion, but, inasmuch as a considerable amount of the time of the House has been taken up in discussing it, perhaps I ought to say that the Scottish Education Department views with some alarm the Ordinance in its present form. I have had the opportunity of consulting with my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir R. Finlay) and have indicated to him that there was no intention on the part of the Government at the present to bring matters to a head, but that we would rather leave the Ordinance in suspense over the period of the Recess so that he might be able to confer with the universities he represents and the other two universities in order perhaps to have some modification which might be acceptable to the Scottish Education Department.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I will, of course, on behalf of the universities I have the honour to represent, most carefully consider any views which the Scottish Education Department entertain with regard to the scope of this Ordinance, but as at present advised, I think the Ordinance is one which ought' to pass in the form in which it stands. Of course, I shall most carefully consider and forward to the proper quarter any views of the Scottish Education Department with regard to possible modifications.
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot hold out any hope that the Department which I represent will view or is likely to view with favour the Ordinance in its present form. That ought to be clearly understood. I can assure my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Hogge) that we recognise that these questions of education are of paramount importance, and the Government is setting up an inquiry, if that is the proper word—it is more a review—into the existing provisions for education on a national scale, and Scotland, so far from being neglected, is represented on that body, might I say, by myself, and others who will be our technical advisers.
    Mr. HOGGE: For Scotland separately?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, not separate; it is education as a whole. We are anxious to have it particularly in that form in order that we may co-ordinate the machinery for the different parts of Great Britain. It is desirable that there should be no divorce in that respect as between the different parts of our country. That being so, I hope my hon. Friend will rest assured that these matters, particularly in relation to a reconstruction after the War, are not being lost sight of, but are really being taken by the forelock and that machinery is being put in motion without delay.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I apologise to the Committee for intervening again. I think the announcement the right hon. Gentleman has made is satisfactory from the point of view of those who share my views, but there is just one little point I would like him to clear up. He suggested that the Ordinance should be suspended during the Recess. During the Recess it will pass out of the control of this House, for it is only under the control of this House for twelve weeks from the 1st of June, and the period during an adjournment counts, although a period during a Prorogation does not count—at least, that is my impression of the Statute, and I have looked it up. The right hon. Gentleman has also suggested that, as a result of his consultation with my right hon. Friend opposite, it might come up in a different form. Can he tell me whether this different Ordinance, with different terms in it, will be laid on the Table of the House, and whether it will again come before the House in such a form as to be under the control of the House? I think it ought, and I think it probably will; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us, if he is in a position to do so.
    Mr. TENNANT: I think I can relieve the fears of my hon. Friend by saying that no Ordinance can come into force unless an Order in Council is issued putting it into force. As regards any modification of it, I take it, and I take it my right hon. Friend opposite will agree, that modifications will require to be a new Ordinance and would therefore be under the control of this House as from the date when it was made.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I presume that as this matter requires to be very minutely examined, it will come before the Universities Committee for them to express their

    1161
    judgment upon it, especially as it may be issued in a modified form. On these terms I think those who hold views on both sides of this question will feel that many arguments which might have been adduced on one side and on the other need not now be put forward. I think the solution which the right hon. Gentleman proposes is a very fair one. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, not to be quite so sure that a Commission of Inquiry is always the best means of advancing education. Let him trust to the experience and skill of the people in the schools. Above all, I join most heartily with my hon. Friend from East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) in asking the right hon. Gentleman to do his best to raise the position, status, and emoluments of the teachers. I am perfectly certain that it is a very essential point, and if you get real enthusiasm and heartiness in the teachers you will do much more for the cause of education than you will do by Commissions or Committees, which are very liable to be dominated by men with fads of their own and peculiar ideas which they desire to introduce into schools as experiments.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NATIONAL GALLERIES, SCOTLAND.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,522, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, and the Museum of Antiquities." [NOTE.—£2,000 has been voted on account.]
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask if my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance that in these Scottish galleries the pictures and other items of interest which are extremely valuable have been removed or are protected in a sufficient way? As he knows, there are in these galleries certain pictures which the Scottish nation would not like to lose, and, since the range of Zeppelin attacks on this country has got as far north as that, and as provision has been made in London for the protection of national treasures, will he see that the same protection is given in the case of the Scottish galleries?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. I can assure my hon. Friend that these matters are
    1162
    not being neglected and that everything considered practical and effective has been done already.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,493, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899."[NOTE.—£10,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir J. JARDINE: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100, and, in doing so, I need hardly say that I have no vindictive intention, especially as the right hon. Gentleman has just come into his new office, and we are glad to welcome him. Hon. Members of this House are aware that I have, from time to time, put down a number of questions relating to the procedure of the Sheriff-substitute in the county of Roxburgh, under the Lighting Order, in regard to small merchants and traders. In the Royal Burgh of Jedburgh there were several cases in which different people were, on the first enforcement of a Lighting Order, sentenced to pay heavy fines. Mr. Mathew Carstairs Noble, for instance, was fined £710s., whilst his wife was also fined £7 10s.; and in the question which I put to the Secretary for Scotland, and which was answered to-day, I ask whether the facts as I stated them are correct. The facts were these: that at the time when the alleged offence was committed Mr. Noble was in some other part of the Royal burgh and not in his house, and that Mrs. Noble had done nothing worse than commit negligence. My information is that Mr. Noble was away somewhere else in the town and that his wife was busy springcleaning or something of that kind, and that in a moment of forgetfulness, no doubt, she left the blind up, and for that offence her absent husband was fined £7 10s., and the wife was also fined £7 10s. Mr. Cockburn was also fined £15. There were two or three more who were fined at the rate of £10 and £7 10s. These persons alleged that the fines were excessive.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member discussing the action of the Law Officers?
    Sir J. JARDINE: No, I am complaining of the conduct of the Secretary for Scotland.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it has anything to do with the Law Officers there is a special Vote for them, and the matter cannot be raised on the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland.
    Sir J. JARDINE: I am not raising any question about the Courts, except so far as it affects the question whether they ought not to have exercised the prerogative of mercy on behalf of those people who consider themselves aggrieved. I am merely stating the case and putting forward the grievance. I have no intention, except incidentally for the purpose of explaining the reason why I bring this matter before Parliament, of attacking, either directly or by insinuation, the learned Sheriff-substitute Baillie. The accused say that these fines are excessive. That is their grievance. They held a public meeting to express that view. A former Provost was in the chair, and they unanimously stated what they thought about it. Their view is that the law is the refuge of the subject, to which, at any time of difficulty, he can resort, that they are relying on their constitutional rights, and that their right to petition the Crown is one with which nobody should interfere. They have a right to hold their public meeting, and they have done so, whereupon they proceeded by petition to the Secretary for Scotland, the appropriate Minister of the Crown, who has the same sort of power under custom and Statute as the Home Secretary has in that part of the realm which, in the Act of Union, is called South Britain, and is known under that designation to this day. They went to him, but they got no redress, and feeling their grievances and knowing that this House of Parliament is and always has been the proper place for stating their grievance, that it is the grand inquest of the nation and that they have a right to have their views expressed here, they have asked me to state them. Their first grievance is the excessive fines, but their second, the point which I bring forward now, is the refusal of the Minister to bring the prerogative of mercy into play. It is the same power which is constantly put into operation by the Home
    1164
    Secretary in England. It is a very wellknown procedure in England and is not unknown in Scotland.
    On what does this custom rest? I claim that they ought to have the benefit of an ancient custom of this kind, namely, the right of the Crown to reduce sentences and to exercise the great prerogative of mercy. I claim that all public prerogatives are given to the Crown for the good of the people. Again, I repeat that the law, especially the constitutional law, is the refuge of the subject, to which he can go when he has been aggrieved. I have mentioned custom as being the most familiar thing. Very often the Home Secretary has interfered with regard to much smaller sentences than these. I come on to Statute law. Great Statutes like the Declaration of Rights in England and the Bill of Rights are second in estimation and reverence in South Britain only to Magna Charta. They apply to the whole administration of the criminal law. These great constitutional laws defining the position of the King, while they require him to execute justice without delay, also require him to execute justice with mercy. He is supposed to be present in all his Courts in the person of his judges, his magistrates, and all the other judicial officers. The Declaration of Rights settled what the rights of the people were, and it involved a change of dynasty from the House of Stuart to that of William and Mary. That Statute law expressly says that excessive fines are wrong. It was one of the grievances alleged against James II. of England and VII. of Scotland. It was one of the reasons why they were prohibited there, and why the Crown was transferred from an ancient house long endeared to Scotland and vested in William and Mary. No one, from that time to this, has had any word to say against the glorious Revolution of 1688. It may be answered that it is not the law of Scotland, that under this great Statute the King is only dealing with English affairs, and that he may look on Scottish affairs with a different eye. I should like to deny that proposition, and point out that very soon after the Lords and Commons of England had made over the Crown to William and Mary the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland had their meeting. That was a very great political time. It followed twenty-eight years of persecution, and the times of James II. which the historian Hallam describes as
    "One of the wickedest administrations that ever existed in this world."

    1165
    They had had long experience of excessive fines and many things worse than that. They had to consider what they would do to put the Kingdom in a better state. They had the Duke of Gordon with his men in Edinburgh Castle threatening them, and they had Claverhouse outside. The burghers of that burgh were very much afraid that he would use his sword to hack them down if they agreed with the Lords and Commons of England, and handed the Crown to Prince William and Princess Mary. They passed then their Declaration, which is very much the same Statute as the Bill of Rights. In many cases it uses the very same words. It does not actually use the word "excessive," but denounces past fines that were exorbitant and extravagant. It prohibits them for the future as being essentially against the peace of the Realm, and therefore, I suppose, against the allegiance of the subject. It denounces "exorbitant and extraordinary" fines occurring in the future. I hold, therefore, that the doctrine of the prerogative of the Crown in regard to judicial duties is the same in both parts of this Kingdom. I have had much to do as a judge of the High Court in India with interference with sentences. The law expressly confers on those judges the power, without motion made, to interfere with sentences which they consider excessive, and there is a direction to all Indian Courts in that famous piece of jurisprudence which has for half a century been the law of all the nations of India, the Indian Penal Code, that fines must not be excessive, and the only comment that is made about that by the learned men who have had written commentaries on that great Indian Statute is that it is taken from the Declaration of Rights; and if anything more were wanted to fortify that part of the argument, which touches about 300,000,000 subjects there, I need only mention that it was Lord Macaulay, who was a statesman as well as a lawyer and an historian, who drafted that code.
    The burghers of Jedburgh are right in demanding that the matter shall be discussed in this House. There is a great leading case that says that the High Court of Parliament, and the House of Commons as a part of that High Court of Parliament, has power, jurisdiction, and authority to inquire into anything that goes on in any subordinate Court. I have been
    1166
    appealed to as the Member for that county to bring forward what these people who have to pay the fines, and their neighbours, ratepayers, and others, at a public meeting alleged to be grievances, because the Secretary for Scotland ought to have examined into them and rectified what there was of excess. In one case a fine of £15 was imposed, and in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Noble £7 10s. each, and there are other cases of £7 10s. and £10, and the people of Jedburgh live in terror lest other high fines of that sort should invariably be inflicted upon them. I have tried to get at the facts of the case by questions in this House. A written answer was given me to-day, but there was no answer to two parts of my question. I asked whether this Mr. Noble was not out at the time and so knew nothing about it, and whether Mrs. Noble's offence only consisted in negligence. That is my information. I state that more pointedly and solemnly because having put the question to find out whether these are the facts, that part of it is entirely ignored. They say the amounts are heavy if considered along with their pecuniary circumstances. These are not great and rich people who have motor cars to ride in every day or who dress themselves in purple and fine linen. They are the ordinary, quiet shopkeepers and little innkeepers of a little country town in Scotland, and to them £15 or £10 is a big sum to pay, especially as it is known that the trade of Jedburgh is suffering because of the War, and they have had many expenses and have given very much to charity, and, like most of us, have had bereavements. No country excels the borderland in traditions of valour, nor, as I believe, in present courage in coming in great numbers to the flag and taking a great part in the fighting in all parts of the world. The people generally are in such a condition that all public authorities ought as far as possible to be generous, and, while being just, to imitate the Crown in its office of mercy. I believe that very strongly, because I know the people well.
    The amounts seem to me heavy, whether you consider the pecuniary circumstances of these people or whether you consider the special circumstances of the time of war. They are heavy again because in no other part of Scotland do you find any fines for this sort of thing—for mere negligence, as on my information I assert, nothing else being said in reply to my question and no contradiction being given.

    1167
    They are higher than the sheriffs of Scotland inflict in any other part, so far as I know. I have found that in Glasgow, which is a pretty big place, the fines are often 2s., and they go up sometimes to 15s., and in many other boroughs of this same sort the scale of fines is based on that. They have no appeal. In Scotland the law leaves this class of case to the learned Sheriffs and the learned Sheriffs' Substitute. In England the jurisdiction is vested in the ordinary magistrates and in the justices of the peace in the counties and the boroughs. I know something about that, for I am on two Commissions of the Peace in Surrey, and I can say what amount the magistrates think there is quite sufficient. The County Bench at Guildford has a number of well-to-do gentlemen before them for a first offence. Some of them had been warned by the police. The fines that they inflicted on that class of people were about £1, and those persons grumble at the amount of the fine when there had been no malicious intention. In Godalming, which is a little borough, the justices content themselves in dealing with the poorer people there with fines varying from 2s. 6d. to 20s., and this is in a neighbourhood where a Zeppelin came one night and dropped a lot of bombs. I saw one as I was going up from the station to my house, and found all the people outside watching the Zeppelin, which was flying through the air and trying to bombard a powder factory which is not very far off. That has not made the magistrates bitter at all in the imposition of fines. The justices in England, whether they belong to counties or boroughs, speaking generally, try to find out what is the position in life of the person, and when it is an offence that is made such only by the law, where there is no wickedness about it and none asserted, none charged, or even suggested, they take good care to distinguish it from such things as setting fire to a farmer's haystack, or burglary, or other offences of that kind. We do not want to force people into the prisons because they cannot pay the fines. It is a sound and resonable discretion that a fine is meant not as a means of sending people to prison, but merely to give them a reminder that they must not break the law. This has always been urged against heavy fines, and there is one case on record in which the Earl of Devonshire was fined £35,000 for striking a courtier in the face, which practically meant send-
    1168
    ing him to prison. If you sentence a servant girl, who does not pull down a blind, to a fine of £10, she has to go to prison, and the evil done is great. I have mentioned already that the sheriff-substitutes administered the law in the way I have referred to. On a next occasion the fines inflicted by the same sheriff-substitute went down from £15 to 5s. That, I say, is a more reasonable way of dealing with things. But the men who had to pay £15 in the first batch of cases will most likely say that they had bad luck, and that if they had been in the second batch of cases they would have got off with a payment of 15s., or less. Unless these fines are reduced it will be an intimation to this and to any other Court that they may go on inflicting fines of £100 and £15, which are far beyond the means of the people to pay.
    There was a case in the papers of a Gentleman on the Front Bench, not unconnected with the Home Office—I am not going to mention his name, because I speak of Gentlemen on that bench with respect—who committed an offence for which people in the Burgh of Jedburgh were fined £15, whereas he got off with 5s. That shows that there is a great deal of difference in these cases. What we require always to think about—and I speak after years and years of judicial work and of controlling other Courts, and after great experience of this particular matter of excessive sentences—what we want throughout the country is an even administration of the law. The law is no respecter of persons, and ought to be equally administered, so that the people of Jedburgh and the county of Roxburgh must not be left to say that it is only in that part of Scotland that heavy fines are inflicted. We must have something like an average, and a measure of common sense. We must have something that which, if any of us were suddenly promoted to be a justice of the peace, and had to go to Petty Sessions, we should consider to be a good enough fine to meet the common sense of the case, and without thinking of the Prerogative of the Crown, and the Claim of Right and the offer of the Crown to their Majesties, King William and Queen Mary, great as all these bulwarks of the law are for the safety of the people. That should never be forgotten by lawyers; and judges, above all, should always remember it. These are not such difficult matters to understand. I saw that an hon. Member of this House got off

    1169
    with only a fine of 5s., and that the wife of a titled judge of this country, I think, got off with £2 odd, but I am not going to speak evil of dignatories or of anybody else, and I am not going to give names. I have no doubt that if the Secretary for Scotland were here he would be eager to join issue with me on what I have said. It all depends on this, that when these Statutes have been broken the fines have been excessive, but the right hon. Gentleman would try to show that they were not. These cases to which I have referred were the first batch, and that was a reason for leniency. These people had had no experience of the new law, and you do not begin to fine people heavily under a new law at first when it is only a case of having blinds up. That is not half as bad as most crimes on the Statute Book, as for instance, that of a boy throwing stones and breaking a, street lamp. In this case there was no previous conviction. I am speaking of facts. I got no answer to-day to my question with regard to the facts, and therefore I am taking what information has been given to me. They pleaded guilty, so as to save the Court trouble, and to show what honest people they were. They gave the excuse of negligence, and that is a thing that applies to Members of Parliament as well as to anybody else. It must be confessed that many of us here, at the end of our Parliamentary careers, will have to say that we have been unprofitable servants and have been negligent in many ways—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]—or, to put it in the Scottish way, we were no better than we should be.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): No one on this bench will suggest that.
    Sir J. JARDINE: I have another question about the facts down for to-morrow, in which I deal with the question of atrocities. Was there any atrocity in any one of these cases? I assert, strongly and boldly, on the information I have, that there was not. There was no suggestion whatever that these people had been in connivance with the enemy, or had set themselves up against the law. Had that been the case, one could have understood why a fine of £15 should have been inflicted. But that was not the case in any instance. There was no aggravation; no atrocity; no connivance with the enemy; nothing, so far as I am informed, and I have made some inquiry, and I have been
    1170
    to Jedburgh for that purpose. There was nothing beyond mere ordinary negligence, such as any woman might be guilty of on a washing day. Take the case of a man who happens at the close of the day to go out for a walk in the burgh: how can he then be certain that his wife will keep the blinds down all the time that he is out? A husband's authority has certain limits, but you would never think of putting a woman in a dock for a thing like that, or a man either, for we should not put the two of them there.
    Mr. HOGGE: Which one would you put there then?
    Sir J. JARDINE: I would leave that to the learned judge or to the procurator-fiscal. I think I have said most of what I meant to say, and I have expressed pretty clearly the views taken by these subjects of the Crown on this matter. It is for the common subjects and the peaceful citizens that all laws are made. What are we here for but to see that these people have opportunities of leading quiet and useful lives, undisturbed even by the authorities and the law; or, if they are brought up for venal offences, that they should be treated in an ordinary common-sense and merciful manner? As far as I know, the Lord Advocate has had nothing to do with this case, and I have not put any questions to him about it. My questions have been put in order to ascertain the facts, and to find out whether there was any obduracy, any previous conviction, any atrocity of any kind, any aggravation or wicked intention, or any connivance with the enemy. Any of these, things would have made the offence quite different. It has not been alleged that any other sheriffs or Courts in Scotland or England have ever thought of imposing fines like this. I have not brought in the personality of the learned judge. It is not with him my quarrel is. It is not about him that the burghers of Jedburgh, men and women, in public meeting assembled, have complained. It is of the Ministers of the Crown, who seem to think that these matters do not concern them, that the prerogative of mercy should not be extended to these matters, whose answers always have been of such a sort that I have felt bound, in order to preserve the liberty of the people, to bring this matter forward.
    The prerogatives of the Crown are given for the benefit of the subjects, and this High Court of Parliament is a place where

    1171
    all grievances can be discussed, and as there is no judicial appeal in these cases particularly, the responsibility of the Minister of the Crown is enormously greater. It is a difficult thing to bring up matters like this and to discuss them in the House of Commons without full knowledge of the facts. But that has happened many times before in cases where the prerogative has been wrongly used, or where it has not been put into force at all when it ought to have been. The books are full of cases of the kind. Everyone who knows the constitutional law knows that. Therefore, as I have not had an answer to my questions about these particular circumstances, I should say that these sentences, fines of £15, and in another case £7 10s. on the husband and £7 10s. on the wife, £10, and similar amounts—in such cases as we have had in the county Roxburgh, where there was no previous conviction, no aggravation, no connivance, in my opinion are most decidedly excessive, exorbitant, and extraordinary. They have all those vices, whatever those three adjectives mean—excessive, exorbitant, and extraordinary. They are unknown to the Courts even of England and Scotland. Therefore, they are extraordinary, and in their effect on the people they are excessive, and in regard to both and the smallness of the offence they are exorbitant. And I am bound to state that, because I base my argument distinctly on the Statutes which use these words. Therefore, I have tried to show they are all these. I have no hesitation in giving that opinion, and when it comes to deciding whether they are excessive, who are the people who are the ultimate judges of what is excessive, exorbitant, and extraordinary? Let the men and women of Scotland judge the matter.
    Mr. BARNES: I want in a few words to follow the hon. Gentleman in the matter which he has brought forward, not only in the interests of his own constituents, but as a matter of public importance. The hon. Gentleman has, I think, unearthed a rather bad case of Jedburgh justice. If I do not follow him in his doctrine of constitutional law and in his reference to the glorious revolution, I hope that he will not think that it is through any disrespect of him, but it seems to me that this case does illustrate inequality in the administration of the law that we ought to have regard to in this House. It is perfectly true, as he
    1172
    says, that there have been numerous cases of people who have been dealt with for this offence, and some of them rather glaring eases. The brother of the Lord Chief Justice, a few months ago, was fined, I believe, £2, and that was a rather glaring case, where the light was observable a considerable distance. I will Dot say that there was any wickedness in regard even to that case. But that was a case of some danger. There was a case of an hon. Member of the House, about the same time, who, I believe, was fined £1, and there have been other cases in which the fine has been considerably lower than that. I join in the protest which has been made by the hon. Member that poor people in Jedburgh, away from the entrance to the High Court in London, should be fined £15 for a trivial offence of this sort when other people get off so lightly. It is a scandalous case of inequality of treatment as between one person and another, all being entitled to the same treatment according to the law.
    But there is a more important question—that is, the conduct of the Secretary for Scotland as the guardian of the interests of the Scottish people. What would have happened in regard to this House had this case occurred in Ireland? You would have had all the Irish party on top of the Secretary for Ireland, and you would have had very ready redress. How is it we do not get the same treatment? I think that these empty benches do explain the position. I heard my hon. Friend say that Scotland was treated badly, that she did not get justice in many ways, and he attributed that, in the speech that he was then making on another topic, to the machinery or lack of machinery. I should rather attribute it to this fact, that there is no cohesion between Scottish Members, and that no pressure is brought to bear upon those who are supposed to be the guardians of the Scottish people, as there ought to be, in a collective manner. I trust that from to-day, having regard to what has happened, we shall exert a little more pressure in some organised way to see that people in Jedburgh and other places in Scotland get something like justice meted out to them.
    This is a scandalous case. There is no wickedness or premeditation about this thing. I can quite understand that anybody might do it. I confess humbly that I have done it myself. Frequently when I go home my last act before going to bed is to go to the room where I keep my

    1173
    books and turn on a light to get a book, and I do not pull the blind down, though I suppose that I should be liable to a fine if a policeman happened to come along at that moment, and I should be more guilty than the person who has been championed to-night by the hon. Member for Roxburgh. I hope that something will be done to see that these scandalous fines are reduced. I say without hesitation that the hon. Member has been treated in a rather cavalier manner by the late Secretary for Scotland, who should have treated him with more respect, whose answers to questions I think ought to have been more in detail and more courteous; and I hope that the new Secretary for Scotland will inaugurate his advent to office by a more courteous treatment, shall I say, of the Scottish Members, and a more painstaking investigation into the legitimate causes of the grievances put before him. I heartily support the hon. Gentleman, in the case which he has brought forward.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I desire to say a few words in support of the appeal made by my colleague from the Border. We share the Border between us, and therefore I have a friendly feeling towards the hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject. My county is next to his, and the people there might be treated in the same way. I think we are greatly indebted to him for having brought this matter forward, for it is one of public interest. My hon. Friend comes to this House with many years of long experience, particularly in the exercise of very high judicial functions, and therefore his opinion is entitled not only personally to great weight, but also because, of his historical references of a very interesting and very forcible character. I do not propose to follow him in those references, interesting and valuable though they are, but they have a bearing upon this question of penalties which cause it to become a matter of public interest. I support him because it is a subject which concerns the administration of evenhanded justice, to which we all attach the utmost importance I would refer to a little incident which shows how incumbent it is upon us to be careful to act fairly in cases of this kind. About a month ago the highest law officer of England was the subject of a Bill to relieve him from penalties amounting to something like £140,000. I do not for a moment suggest that the highest law officer of the Crown was guilty of anything more than these persons were guilty of—a little ignorance and a little
    1174
    carelessness—but we in this House were occupied for some time in going through the whole machinery of a Bill to relieve that right hon. Gentleman of the consequences of his action, owing to his lapse of memory or whatever it might have been. Here we have people in humble circumstances, who are not in the limelight at all, and who are following their ordinary avocations in their own neighbourhood, and now that the matter in which they are concerned has been brought before us, we ought, as far as we can, to mete out evenhanded justice, and not let it be felt that a man highly placed like the Attorney-General can be relieved entirely of all the consequences of that which might have had very serious results if he had not been so relieved, while poor people are subjected to what I cannot help thinking is unjust inequality, which ought not to exist, compared with the justice administered to other subjects of the Crown.
    Mr. HOGGE: I want to support my hon. and learned Friend with whom I was associated before on this particular point. I think that the fines that were exacted in these particular cases were wicked, in fact they were monstrous fines, and I think that the ex-Secretary for Scotland did himself an injustice in not taking the matter up and having those fines reduced. I am extremely sorry to know from my hon. and learned Friend in front of me that the present Secretary for Scotland has also refused to reopen this particular matter. I would suggest to him that if he wants a popular reception in Scotland he had better go to Jedburgh, and he will there find what the people of Scotland think of any Minister who refuses to take up a matter of this kind. It is common knowledge that a Member of this House was fined only a short time ago for not having his blinds drawn. Here we are dealing with humble people in Jedburgh, and I hope if my hon. Friend does not get satisfaction that he will divide the House.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): As this matter occurred in the time of the previous Secretary for Scotland, and as I have some personal knowledge of the facts, perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the Debate. The subject was introduced by my hon. and learned Friend behind me in an interesting speech characterised by all the ingenuity and learning which we associate with him, and I should be the very last to deny the authority which he has to

    1175
    speak on subjects such as that which is now before the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the Declaration of Eights. I very respectfully doubt whether that document, for which I have, needless to say, the most profound respect, has any real bearing upon the question which has been raised to-night. That was a document dating back to the time of James VJLL It was a declaration which contained a protest against the power which had been usurped by the King. It was a protest, as I understand it, made by the estates of the Realm against the authority which His Majesty had usurped. The document set forth that he had asserted absolute power to annul all the laws, and to impose exorbitant fines. Therefore it was set forth that the imposition of extraordinary fines is contrary to the law. But to appreciate the document aright depends upon the circumstances in which it was written, and those circumstances, as I say, were that it was a protest—and my hon. Friend will not deny this—made by the constituted estates of the realm against the power which had been usurped by His Majesty. What bearing has that upon this question which turns upon the administration of the law as authorised by Parliament? I beg my hon. and learned Friend to remember that in administering the law under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the sheriff, if he had so pleased, was empowered by Parliament to fine these people not only £7 10s. or £10, as the case might be, but he was authorised by this House, if in his discretion, and looking to the circumstances of the particular case, he thought fit to do so, to do what?—he was entitled to impose a fine of £100 with imprisonment, with or without hard labour, and the forfeiture of goods. That was the law which the sheriff-substitute had to administer. I want the Committee to put to themselves this question: How are you to arrive at the conclusion that this fine was exorbitant or excessive, to use the adjectives which my hon. and learned Friend has used, if, in point of fact, the sheriff-substitute had the power to impose infinitely more severe penalties than he did? So far as I can see, the bearing of the Declaration of Rights on that particular question, if I may say so, with the greatest respect to my hon. and learned Friend, is somewhat remote. Then he went on to say, and I do not think—
    Sir J. JARDINE: The grievances were not caused directly by the King in the imposition of fines, but by his Ministers and judges, and many of them were abolished afterwards in Scotland, as well as in England, by Acts of the Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, in cases where there is no aggravation, and there is little or no money to pay the fines, that the limitation against excessive fines is to disappear, so that the sheriff can impose fines of £100 for this very common little offence, and make the Jedburgh jurisdiction altogether different from that of any other part of the Kingdom?
    Mr. MUNRO: I hope I shall be allowed to deal with the two points separately. So far as the first point is concerned, I quoted from the document on which he relied, and that purports to be a protest against the power usurped by the King. So far as the second point is concerned, I hope to come to the precise circumstances under which these fines were imposed. I submit that the Declaration of Rights, important as it admittedly is, has no relevant bearing on this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that there is no appeal in this matter. I venture to think he has not made out that proposition. If he will look at the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1908, he will find that it is there provided—I say nothing about what the law was before that date—that the Supreme Court in Scotland—that is the High Court of Justiciary—can reduce any fine imposed by an inferior Court. That being so, I do not think he has made out the proposition that there was no appeal, a statement which he reiterated on two occasions. He went on to say that the fines were, under the circumstances, excessive, and he complained, and so did my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), that the former Secretary for Scotland had not taken up or inquired into this matter and dealt with it courteously. I most emphatically repudiate both suggestions. My right hon. Friend took up the matter with the very greatest care, called for full reports and considered those reports. So far as courtesy is concerned, I think the answers which he gave in this House—whether my hon. and learned Friend was satisfied with them or not is quite another question—were characterised by entire courtesy.
    Sir J. JARDINE: I did not complain.
    Mr. MUNRO: I did not refer in this respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman sitting behind (Mr. Barnes) Let us come to the circumstances of these particular cases. The very fullest information was called for and obtained by the Scottish Office in the matter. What were the facts about these Lighting Regulations? I must protest at once against the suggestion that a breach of these Regulations is a trivial matter. That was said in the course of the Debate, and I was surprised to hear it said especially when we read that only last night on the South-East Coast of Scotland there was a Zeppelin raid. These are not Regulations which are to be lightly treated or regarded as Regulations which can be disobeyed without any serious consequences being entailed. I protest against that theory at once, and emphatically. The situation was this: in the particular district with which we are concerned—and no one has a higher respect for that district than I have; I have visited it with my hon. and learned Friend on, I think, more than one occasion—it is perfectly certain that there was considerable carelessness in the observance of these Regulations before these charges were made, and very considerable laxity, of which complaint was made. Not only were these Regulations not properly observed, but the very persons who were charged in these particular cases with breaches of them had been specifically and repeatedly warned with regard to their breach of the Regulations, and it was under these circumstances that the fines of which complaint has been made were imposed. They were imposed in a locality where these Regulations were not carefully observed, upon persons who had been repeatedly warned of the serious consequences of breaking the Regulations, and they were imposed for a breach of Regulations which are essentially important in their observance.
    10.0 P.M.
    The learned sheriff has made a report on the subject. I am not sure that it is usual to go into these details on the question of the exercise of the prerogative. I venture to say parenthetically to my hon. and learned Friend, who is a great judge of constitutional matters, that it seems to me that it is a novel and undesirable doctrine that the exercise of the prerogative should be the subject of discussion in this House. It is rather a new idea, and
    1178
    I think it has been depreciated when tried before. However that may be, the circumstances are these: that a full report was called for from the sheriff. The sheriff reported that all relevant considerations bearing upon this matter were before him when the sentences were imposed. Since those sentences were imposed the result has been shown to be most salutary in this particular locality, and the observance of the Regulations has been infinitely better than before. To suggest that there was any partiality or respect of persons, or that heavy fines were imposed because the person charged was poor or in humble circumstances is quite idle and grotesque. The circumstances were considered quite apart from the financial or social position of the persons. It was partly as a punishment and partly as a deterrent. Those were the two considerations which entered into the amount of the penalty, and it was after full consideration of all these matters and of the surrounding circumstances that fines were imposed. I may say that I am not in the least surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland should have declined to interfere with the discretion of the sheriff in deciding a matter well within his competence, after full consideration of all the circumstances bearing upon this matter.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I listened with the closest attention to the account which the right hon. Gentleman has just given us of the action of the late Secretary for Scotland in refusing to modify the very severe penalties imposed in Jedburgh for certain breaches of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I must, in the first place, demur to the novel doctrine of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that it is not only unusual but almost improper to have any discussion in this House on the exercise by the responsible Minister of the prerogative of mercy. I think it is well within the recollection of all Members of this House that on very many occasions this matter has been the subject of debate, and sometimes of serious controversy in this House. The present Secretary for Scotland has been in this House since the year 1894, and if be carries his mind back to that Parliament he will remember that the present Prime Minister had to meet long and sustained criticism in regard to his exercise of the prerogative regarding the dynamite prisoners.
    Mr. TENNANT: I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to the prerogative of mercy in relation to the Defence of the Realm cases, and not to the more serious cases.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I fancy that my right hon. Friend did not hear the contention of his colleague the Lord Advocate, who, I think rather unfortunately, deprecated discussion in this House of the manner in which this prerogative is exercised. I think it is one of the great privileges of this House that it is entitled to do this, and it is well for the administration of justice in this country that we should have full opportunity of doing it whenever any hon. Member thinks that a primâ facie case has been made out for interference. I think there was a case for interference in this particular instance. I think the fines imposed were altogether out of proportion to the offences committed. There have been many other cases of similar breaches of these Regulations in other parts of the country. I have no doubt some of them have been quoted. Only last week an hon. Gentleman—he is not yet a right hon. Gentleman; I suppose he will be in time—who sits on the Front Bench was fined 5s. He is a Minister in the Department that is very largely concerned in the administration of this particular Act. He ought to have known the law. These men, we are told, had been warned. Here was a man who should not have required to be warned at all. He ought to have known all the Regulations. Yet in spite of that he gets off with a paltry fine of 5s. I am surprised that the Lord Advocate should take the view that the financial position of the accused person is not a matter that should be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty.
    Mr. MUNRO: I did not intend to suggest that. I said that it was not in respect of the fact that these were humble people that a fine of that amount was imposed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is precisely because of their position and their financial resources that we regard these fines as extravagant. Had it been an Under-Secretary enjoying a salary of £1,500 a year we should have said that a penalty of £15 was practically negligible. But for a man in humble life, earning perhaps 30s. a week, a fine of £15 is surely a very excessive punishment to impose. It is solely because of the disproportion between the fines and the financial resources of the guilty parties that we protest against their
    1180
    imposition. When the Regulations giving wider latitude in relation to these penalties were framed I thought the larger penalties were intended to strike in cases where it might be said there was treasonable intent; in other words, that where, for example, there was anything in the nature of signalling the higher penalty should be imposed. But where, on the other hand, there was no mens rea and it was simply a matter of negligence a much less heavy penalty would meet the circumstances of the case. It is, I believe, mainly upon these grounds that my hon. Friend (Sir J. Jardine) has repeatedly raised the question in the House, and I think he has been wise in bringing it forward on this occasion. If as a protest against the harsh official attitude that has been taken up he sees his way to divide the Committee, I shall certainly support him.
    Mr. WATSON: A question of constitutional law and practice and another of constitutional history have been raised as regards the Royal Prerogative. As I have always understood the matter, the question of the exercise of the Prerogative is for the Grown alone. The only question with which this House can be concerned is in regard to the action of the Minister whose Department is concerned in advising the Crown whether or not the Prerogative should be exercised. As regards the actual exercise of the Prerogative, we have no right of interference. With regard to constitutional history, I confess I was rather startled when the hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir J. Jardine) attempted to draw an analogy between the class of fines referred to in the Petition of Right and the class of fines with which we are dealing here. If I remember my history aright, the class of fine referred to in the Petition of Right was really a form of taxation, and not a penalty imposed for an offence or anything of that kind. The analogy is an entirely false one. In any event, it seemed to me to have very little bearing. As regards the question of the Minister advising the exercise of the Prerogative, as far as my knowledge goes that advice has never been given or suggested to be given where any other remedy for redressing the grievance was open to the subject. I entirely agree with the Lord Advocate that there was another course open to these people, namely, to take an appeal to the High Court of Judiciary under the Summary Jurisdiction

    1181
    Act, in which they could have raised this point, and this point alone, of the heaviness of the fine. It may be that the time for that has gone by and that it is too late for them to do so. If that be so, there might well arise a proper occasion for suggesting the exercise of the Royal prerogative.
    I must confess that until I heard the statement of the facts by the Lord Advocate I was impressed not only with what seemed the grave unfairness of the decision, but also with what seemed to be the complete innocence of the parties. It seemed to be a mere slip of the memory, or pure carelessness, or something of that kind. On the latter point the matter has undoubtedly taken a totally different appearance from the facts as stated by the Lord Advocate. These people, among others, had been repeatedly warned. Undoubtedly this is a serious offence and one which might as late as last night have caused trouble even in this particular part of Scotland. We do not know exactly the district over which the raid took place, but it is obvious that it was not 100 miles from Jedburgh. I do not think it is 100 miles from Jedburgh to the coast. I am not now giving a legal opinion, but if I had been asked by these people whether I thought an appeal should be taken to the High

    FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,969, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays." [NOTE.—£8,000 has been voted on account.]
    Court of Judiciary to get the fines reduced, I would certainly have advised them to try. The fines still strike me as very heavy under the circumstances. If that course is still open to them, I, for one, think they would be well advised to take it. If it is not, on the whole I still retain the impression that the fines are heavy and a little unfair. But as to the question of negligence, and so on, the case has taken a different aspect and is much more serious than at first I thought it was on the somewhat scanty information which had been given. Certainly I should not be prepared to go to the length of voting against the right hon. Gentleman in a Division, and I hope the matter will not be pressed to that extent. Because, personally, I think it is clearly the inveterate practice that the prerogative is never exercised where there is a legal remedy open to the person to attain this end. There has never been an occasion, I think, where that has been done, and I think the matter should be left in that way.
    Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £8,493 be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 6.

    Division No. 51.]

    AYES.

    [10.16 p.m.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Sutton, John E.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Swiff, Rigby

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Munre, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Res, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Younger, Sir George

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Fell, Arthur

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    NOES.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Keating, Matthew

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Byrne, Alfred

    Pratt, J. W.

    Sir J. Jardine and Mr. Hogge

    Cowan, William Henry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Mr. COWAN: On these occasions in past years I have generally felt it my duty to voice some of the grievances of the fishing population of the North-East Coast of Scotland. This time I do not propose to follow that course, not because there are no grievances to be redressed, but because such grievances as are at all acutely felt under present circumstances are directly traceable to the state of war in which we are engaged.

    1183
    My Constituents are, I think, among the most patriotic people in Scotland, just as the Scottish people are undoubtedly amongst the most patriotic of the United Kingdom or the Empire, and they willingly submit to the many inconveniences and privations which the War imposes upon them. They are content to submit to the restrictions on fishing by which they are handicapped in almost every direction. They are unable to earn the living which in the past they have drawn from the bountiful harvest of the sea, and they are deprived of many other resources which have provided for them in the past. Consequently they look forward to the time when the War is over, and while the War is on they are content to man the mine-sweepers and the patrol boats and wait for their reward in the peaceful future to which they look forward. I do not think that I should let this occasion pass without reserving all their rights in regard to grievances which are still unredressed and from which the fishermen on the North-East Coast of Scotland suffer. I will not say one word to press those claims under present circumstances, but I ask the House to note that my Constituents, from patriotic motives acquiesce in the postponement of the redress of their very real grievances, and that I, as their representative, will call attention to those grievances and seek their redress as soon as the War comes to an end.
    Mr. BYRNE: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present to listen to the discussion of this important question.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must be singularly lacking in his appreciation of numbers, because I have just announced that there were forty Members present.
    Mr. HOGGE: As my hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan) has this year abandoned his catechism with regard to the difficulties of the fishermen in Scotland, I do not propose to take his place, but there is one item which I hope my right hon. Friend can give us some information about before we pass it. It is item (f), which deals with the North Sea Fisheries International Investigation. We all know the history of that International Investigation. It will be noticed that in 1915-16 £5,579 was the estimate, and I presume that amount was spent, whereas this year there is only a
    1184
    decrease of £751, which means that £4,828 is to be spent. That suggests that the activity in connection with this investigation is going on and I am rather curious to know what is being done. My hon. Friend says that the fishermen have no grievances, which I suppose means that they are making more money in other ways, or else it means that when fishing they are getting such prices that they are deprived of all their grievances.
    Mr. COWAN: I said they reserved their grievances.
    Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend says those grievances are in reserve, evidently because of the reasons I have stated. I want to know who is doing this work. Is it being pursued at all on the sea or is the money being spent on the land, and, if so, in what way? I suppose it is clear that the experiments could not be stopped without some serious loss to the whole investigation, but I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us information as to why this Vote has been decreased so little at a time when the North Sea is closed to everybody.
    Mr. TENNANT: If I may refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Cowan), first, I would say that what he has said in regard to the patriotic feelings of the fishing population of our country, and the way they have responded to the national cause, is by no means exaggerated. We all know that there has been a very remarkable response by those who inhabit the borders of the sea all over Scotland. Of course, the actual fact that we are in a condition of war now has interfered enormously with the prosperity of the fishing, but it is a very remarkable circumstance, in spite of that fact, that the herrings landed in 1915 were only 110,000 crans, while this year they have been 392,000 crans. That is a splendid fact in itself. Each cran, I think, represents two pounds. Therefore, to that extent the fishing population are to be congratulated on being in a comparatively flourishing condition. I quite admit that the white fishing is in a different condition altogether, and one cannot apply the same test to it. I am informed by my authorities that there has been no instance of the fishing industry being so seriously interfered with since the Crimean War. Therefore it is a very remarkable thing that there should be so good a return of fish landed as we have to show. Out of 56,700 fishermen, curers, and others en-

    1185
    gaged in the fishing industry, 23,000 are engaged in the naval and military forces. These are very good figures. There is another figure which I think will interest the Committee. In 1843 the exports of herrings to Europe reached 112,000 barrels, and in 1912 the enormous figure of over 1,500,000 barrels had been reached. I do not know the exact number of barrels for this year. Probably it is not quite so high as 1912, particularly as the Continental market, of course, is very much closed at the present time.
    I now come to the question of the international investigation raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge). I used, at one time, to be conversant with the details of that scientific investigation, as I once presided over the Committee which had to deal with the subject, but I am bound to say that it has passed a little beyond my ken during the last year or so. I, therefore, cannot give him a specific answer to the question that he has put to me, but I can well imagine that an inquiry of this kind, which has now extended, I should think, over more than ten years—I cannot say without looking back, but certainly over a considerable period—could not and ought not to be interfered with ruthlessly though we are going through this very difficult period of the War. Continuity in an examination of this kind is absolutely of the essence of the inquiry, and anything like a hiatus would be prejudicial to the results which it is hoped will be achieved. That being so, I think the answer to my hon. Friend is that no doubt great effort has been made to preserve the continuity of the inquiry, in order not to diminish the value of the results to be achieved.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any work is being done at sea now, and, if not, how the money is being spent?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, I cannot say.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think my right hon. Friend is really under a misapprehension in regard to this Vote. He assumed that the work is still being pursued. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) had closely read the footnote, he would have seen that the larger part of the sum voted for the North Sea Fisheries International Investigation was really for the maintenance of the "Goldseeker." It is at present engaged on Admiralty work, but the cost of its maintenance is borne on
    1186
    this Vote. I think that had my right hon. Friend and the Scottish Fishery Board insisted that the. Admiralty should pay for the maintenance of the ship while it was under Admiralty control, that then the amount actually voted for the investigation would have been reduced by more than half, and my right hon. Friend would not then have been subjected to the interrogation with which he has found so much difficulty.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend accuses me of having found much difficulty in answering the question. There is really no difficulty if one had had a little notice and had had time to look it up. In point of fact, I have been informed since I sat down that the staff has been very greatly reduced, as one can assume have all staffs who are engaged on Government work or work in relation to Government inquiries. These staffs, as is very well known, have been very materially reduced and those who are left behind are working upon material which has been accumulated during recent years. That brings me to the mention of the laboratory which exists for scientific investigation upon a very interesting scale and which has been conducted over a long series of years by a staff which presumably has not been so seriously depleted as the staff upon the ships and upon other parts of the investigation. No doubt the investigations in that laboratory are being conducted as best they can conduct them with the depleted staff.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The only suggestion I would make is that as the gold-seeker is not being employed by the Fishery Board for purposes of this investigation the cost of its maintenance should be borne by the Admiralty, and the Scottish Office should get credit for the economy which it is actually exercising. If the £2,306 were taken off these Votes it would then appear as so much less for Scottish administration. I think the Scottish Office should see another year that these sums are removed from our Votes.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    GENERAL BOARD OF CONTROL FOR SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,568, 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

    1187
    day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Board of Control for Scotland." [NOTE.—£10,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: There is an item in this Vote which requires some explanation. Why are the provisions towards the expenses of local authorities so largely increased? There is an increase of £11,400. Is this due to the treatment of cases among the soldiers, or is it due to any other reason which is local or national?
    Mr. PRINGLE: In order to enable my right hon. Friend to refresh himself from the usual sources of information, I wish to ask the attention of the Committee to this very large increase. I notice from the Vote that of these contributions in the year 1915-16 only £7,250 was voted, and that this year we are called upon to vote the largely increased sum of £18,650; that is an increase of £11,400. We have more than doubled the contributions towards the expenses of local authorities. I am not quite clear at this moment whether certain Sections of the Mental Deficiency Act, of unhappy memory—
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh!
    Mr. PRINGLE: Yes; your predecessor had a very unhappy time over it. I am not sure whether those Sections are regarded as a justification for this expenditure. I have no doubt that the Statutory provisions have made it necessary. Those of us who were severe critics of that particular Act on the ground of the enormous burdens it was likely to impose upon the local authorities and the Imperial Exchequer are justified in the criticisms we then made in view of the heavy charge which is now put upon the Estimates. If I recollect the matter aright, the Imperial contributions are pound for pound with those of the local authorities under those Sections, so that if the Imperial contribution has increased from £7,250 to £18,650 in a certain year, we may take it that the burden upon local ratepayers has been increased in a similar proportion. In these circumstances, those of us who criticised it as a piece of unnecessary and wasteful so-called social reform, which was only advocated by cranks like the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Major Chapple), who had quaint ideas about methods of dealing with the unfit population, and was adopted to gratify those cranks who formed a Royal Commission some years ago, are now
    1188
    justified in the criticisms we then made. The financial situation with which we are now faced justifies all that was said by us at that time in trying to prevent that measure being passed.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that the increase of expenditure is due to the administration of the Mental Deficiency Act. I am pleased to be able to confirm my hon. Friends in their determination to justify the attitude which they adopted some years ago when that measure was passing through this House. To my mind, it does not at all follow that, because there is a considerable expenditure upon the administration of this Act, it was necessarily an improper expenditure of public money. I did not follow the matter at that time because I was engaged in the administration of the War Office. I hope I may be absolved from having neglected my duties in that respect. I only cautiously and tentatively warn my hon. Friends that there may be an increased expenditure of public money upon administration which may be valuable to the State, and may be money expended very well. It may be in excess of what was anticipated at the time, but it does not follow from that that the money expended is necessarily wasted. That is the only contention I would put forward. I would confirm my hon. Friends in the correctness of their prophecy that there would be a certain amount of money which would necessarily be expended.
    Mr. HOGGE: We will let you off now.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE SCOTLAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,096, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registrar-General of Births, etc., in Scotland." [NOTE.—£3,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: On page 151 there is a footnote which deals with the question of the wages of pensioner messengers. I am raising the point here because also on page 149 there is a similar footnote, and it states in each of the cases the amount of the Army pension that they are getting from Army Votes. In this case two of

    1189
    the pensioner messengers are in receipt of pensions of 1s. 1d. and 9½d. a day respectively from Army Votes, while a third receives a pension of 21s. from 12th June, 1916. I am very glad to see from these two Votes that the policy is being adopted of employing men who have been disabled, but that leads me to ask this question: The wages are put down at 24s. a week, and it says in the footnote that it will be recommended on a vacancy, and in that case the pension is 2s. 4d., whereas in the other case the salary is the same and the pension is 1s. 1½d. and 9½d. I suppoes it is the policy of the Scottish Office, so far as it can, to employ men of that kind in these positions, and in every case they have taken no advantage of the fact that the man has a pension in attempting to lower the standard wage which has in the past been paid for that work.
    Mr. TENNANT: I can assure my hon. Friend that it has been the policy of public Departments as a whole to employ, as far as possible, soldiers or sailors who have served their time in the service of the Crown. That has been the accepted policy of all the Departments for quite a considerable period. As regards the position of a pensioned soldier, speaking offhand without consultation, I should say that the question of his being in receipt of a pension ought not to debar him from the proper salary which ought to be given to him. I do not think there is any question of that.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOAED FOE SCOTLAND.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £16,924, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland." [NOTE.—£12,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: May we know on this Vote what position the Housing Commissioners' Report is in, and when we are going to get it? It has been promised now for a very long time. I do not know what amount of work has been done upon it. It is time we had the Report after all these years.
    Mr. TENNANT: There was a Commission sitting, but its activities were suspended after the outbreak of the War; at any rate, they are suspended now and have been for a considerable period. Therefore you cannot expect a Report until they resume their sittings. Of course it is an important question, and I should like my hon. Friend to recognise that we are at war.
    Mr. WATSON: It was understood that this Report was actually in draft already, and that it would not require very much extra labour to get it issued. I can quite understand that some members of the Commission may not be very readily available, but the matter is an urgent one, and we ought to have it in our hands for public information as soon as possible, and certainly before the end of the War, because the housing question is a very pressing question in Scotland, especially in the mining districts. I do not ask for any assurance to-night, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter and see if it is not possible to get an interim Report. I believe it is in draft, and there would not be very much difficulty. At any rate, the matter is urgent, though I quite understand the difficulty.
    Mr. TENNANT: In reply to my hon. Friend, I would say that he has been misinformed when he says that the Report is in draft. It is not in draft, and therefore it is not possible to accede to his request that it should be issued before the end of the War. I quite recognise that this is a matter of urgency, but I do not think it is possible to get the Report issued before the end of the War.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Under the sub-head F, the annuity under the Housing Act, 1914, payable to National Debt Commissioners in respect of advances under the Housing Act for the Rosyth Housing Scheme, is £1,228. This appears to be the only housing scheme referred to in the Vote. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would say whether his Department and the Local Government Board are exercising any supervision and control over any of the schemes which are at present being put into operation in regard to the housing of munition workers in some of the places where workers were brought together in large numbers for the first time during last year. I know, of course, that certain schemes have been put into operation by the local authorities,

    1191
    in conjunction with the Ministry of Munitions. It is important that the Local Government Board should exercise supervision over any such schemes, and should see that they are carried out in an efficient way, and in a manner which will help to promote the health of the people who are being housed. I do not know to what extent the Local Government Board has been called into consultation with a view to the preparation of these schemes. I hope, however, that the Department has been called into consultation, and that anything that is being done, though it may be done hastily, is being carried through on sound lines, so that we may not see, as the result of these hasty schemes, the creation of new large areas of slums which will come into being in a few years' time.
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Local Government Board has been consulted and is exercising its supervision over nearly all these schemes—in fact, so far as I know, over all of them. Its assistance and advice have been sought and have been of the greatest value. I cannot be sufficiently grateful to the Local Government Board for the supervision which it has exercised, and I am sure it has been of the utmost benefit to these new communities which have been credited.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.—Class III.
    Resolved,
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £53,746, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland." [NOTE.—£30,000 has been voted on account.]

    REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH.—Class III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,789, 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, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's
    1192
    General Register House, Edinburgh." [NOTE.—£17,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: This is the most serious Vote of the day. I have some pamphlets, which I hope my right hon. Friend will examine. Here is one of twelve volumes, which enshrine the Acts of Parliament for Scotland from 1124 to 1423. The plates are extremely excellent, and if my right hon. Friend will do me the pleasure to look at some of these plates he will see their value. Somebody in the Register House has suggested that these documents, which include twelve complete sets, ought to be sold at 1s. per volume for the purpose of pulp for making paper, and if it had not been for the action of my hon. Friend (Mr. MacCallum Scott) who happens to be on this Committee, and my hon. Friend, who has been detained recently on military duties, who I am glad to see has returned safely to this House from his duties, those volumes might have been lost. They recommended that the Secretary for Scotland should prepare a scheme whereby those volumes should be distributed throughout public libraries in Scotland. I want to know who the first class idiot who was responsible for suggesting that these valuable Scottish documents should be pulped, and is he at present in a responsible position which might lead him to commit any other valuable documents to the pulper?
    Mr. MUNRO: I had not much time left to deal with this matter. It is not my hon. Friend's fault. What he suggests is that a certain amount of discredit attaches to the Register House in connection with this proposal. I want at once to deny that suggestion. There is nobody who knows the Deputy-Clerk Registrar and his staff and who knows the work which they have done for Scotland in preserving national documents connected with Scotland who would not at once repudiate any suggestion either of vandalism or carelessness on their part. No doubt my hon. Friend has read the letter from the Curator of Historical Documents, one of the most distinguished of men, which was published in the "Scotsman" on August 8th?
    Mr. HOGGE: I have read the letter.
    Mr. MUNRO: That letter sets forth the facts more concisely than I can do. The matter came before the Committee which

    1193
    sat upon it without any evidence being asked for from the Deputy-Clerk Registrar or any member of his staff. It is unfortunate that that should have been so; because, it such evidence had been asked for, this misunderstanding would not have arisen. I am far from blaming anybody in connection with the matter, but I think that was how this misunderstanding arose. I want most emphatically to say, on behalf of the Deputy-Clerk Registrar, and of those who work with him, that nothing was further from their thoughts than to commit any act which could have been described as one of vandalism.
    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.

    FINANCE (EXCHEQUER BONDS) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

EDUCATION (FEE GRANT) BILL.
Bill read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  NATIONAL WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
  NATIONAL WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  BBITISH SUBJECTS RESIDENT ABROAD.
  BBITISH SUBJECTS RESIDENT ABROAD.
  LIABILITY TO SERVICE ABROAD.
  LIABILITY TO SERVICE ABROAD.
  PRIVATE UNDER AGE.
  PRIVATE UNDER AGE.
  DOCTORS (ENROLMENT).
  DOCTORS (ENROLMENT).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOBS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOBS.
  APPEAL FOR REHEARING.
  APPEAL FOR REHEARING.
  OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHERS IN WAR AREAS
  OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHERS IN WAR AREAS
  HAY PURCHASES.
  HAY PURCHASES.
  MENTALLY AFFECTED SOLDIERS (ESCORTS).
  MENTALLY AFFECTED SOLDIERS (ESCORTS).
  WOUNDED SOLDIER (RETURN TO ACTIVE SERVICE).
  WOUNDED SOLDIER (RETURN TO ACTIVE SERVICE).
  MR. J. WESLEY ALLISON.
  MR. J. WESLEY ALLISON.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  INJUEED WOBKEE.
  INJUEED WOBKEE.
  WOMEN WORKERS' WAGES.
  WOMEN WORKERS' WAGES.
  RESTRICTED AREAS.
  RESTRICTED AREAS.
  LICENSED HOUSES (ACQUISITION).
  LICENSED HOUSES (ACQUISITION).
  GRAIN (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  GRAIN (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
  SUGAR SUPPLIES.
  SUGAR SUPPLIES.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  PETROL SUPPLY.
  LONDON AND NORTHERN STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
  LONDON AND NORTHERN STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
  PROHIBITED EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.
  PROHIBITED EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.
  LIGHTING ORDER (ROXBURGH).
  LIGHTING ORDER (ROXBURGH).
  Prison Warders, Ireland (Wages).
  Prison Warders, Ireland (Wages).
  Vaccination (Exemption Declarations).
  Vaccination (Exemption Declarations).
  Venereal Disease.
  Venereal Disease.