I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private notice —namely, whether he is in a position to make any statement in connection with what passed in another place yesterday on the subject of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.

I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the Government have withdrawn the Bill and that a Bill for amending and extending the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act was promised in the King's Speech at the beginning of the present Parliament, it is intended to give effect to that promise by introducing land legislation for the Highlands of Scotland early next session.

What I understand happened with regard to this Bill in another place was this. I gather from the ordinary sources of information that their Lordships entered upon a discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and that, after it had proceeded at considerable length, a Motion was made that the debate be adjournedsine die, in order that they might become acquainted with the provisions of the English Small Holdings Bill, which was then on its passage through this House. In the course of that discussion there had been indications given of the view taken by the Opposition—the great majority of the Peers in the other place, hut no definite statement was made of the ultimate decision arrived at by the Opposition. But yesterday a definite announcement of that sort was made, and it appeared that the intention was, after the Second Reading of the Bill, to transform it practically into a wholly new Bill. There was to be a recognition of the necessity of the clauses dealing with the part of the country at present under the Crofters Act, and some intention, apparently, of extending the powers and areas under those Acts. There was an indication that on no account would their Lordships be advised by the Opposition to adhere to the provisions in the Bill setting up a Land Court, which we consider as vital. The further point was that certain provisions of the English Bill were to be engrafted on the Scottish Bill in order that Scotland might have the advantage of the better state of things which would be created in England. That being so, we had to consider our position with regard to the Bill. For the policy announced by the Opposition there was no authority whatever from Scotland. In fact, the very proposal showed a cynical disregard of the wishes and desires and wants of the people of Scotland as represented by those who speak for them in this House. As a matter of fact, those proposals would require substantial consideration. I may mention one fact that really influenced us on this part of the case. If you are not to adopt the proposal that we make to extend the system of the Crofters Acts to the whole of Scotland, you must select the parts of Scotland to which the provisions of the Crofters Act and the system of rural adjustment under it should be extended. That has been a matter before the people of Scotland and before this House for many years, and everyone has recognised the difficulty of discriminating when we come to that further procedure; and if that was to be entered upon it would be a matter not of days, but of weeks, or even of months, before it could be properly defined. I mention that by way of showing the futility of the course which was proposed. This being the object—to change the Bill entirely—the Second Reading appeared to us to be an utter and absolute farce. Furthermore, seeing that neither the Government nor the majority in this House would, on any condition whatever, agree to these proposals, it was totally unnecessary at this time of the session for the House of Lords to waste further time in considering the Bill, because these were proposals which the House of Commons, rightly or wrongly, representing as they are entitled to represent—the majority of Scottish Members on this side of the House may be regarded as representing—the Scottish people, could not entertain, or whose consideration even could be calmly acquiesced in. Therefore, it comes to this, that the question is forced upon us—Who is to control the legislation with regard to the vital interests of the people of Scotland? Is it those who are authorised by the people of Scotland to speak for them, or is it noble Lords in another place and a small section of this House who sympathise with the noble Lords? I trust there will be no doubt whatever what answer must be given to that question; and we abandon what would have been a farce, the proposal that further progress should be made with this Bill in those circumstances, and with those avowed intention's on behalf of the commanding majority in the other House. We abandon the further progress of this Bill with the greatest regret, but the provisions which are thus objected to will be reintroduced at an early date and will be passed through this House in as speedy a manner as possible, and then we shall invite the other House either honestly to reject these provisions or to pass the Bill with reasonable Amendments consistent with its main purpose and principles. As I have said, it is a question of the future control of Scottish affairs, and on that question we have no doubt what our course is.

Under the guise of answering a Question, the right hon. Gentleman has pronounced a manifesto to which I have not the least objection, I need hardly say; only I presume it will, by the practice of this House, be permitted to me, after the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to take, to travel beyond the limits which would ordinarily be regarded as proper in the mere putting of a supplementary Question. The right hon. Gentleman terminated his address by using an epithet which suggested that in the course they have pursued the other House was not acting honestly. I leave it to this House to decide whether that is either a convenient or a decorous method of commenting upon another place. I do not suppose the Members of that other place will take much umbrage at anything which falls from the right hon. Gentleman. What is the course which the right hon. Gentleman describes as something less than honest which the House of Lords has pursued? I have no better and no worse sources of information than the right hon. Gentleman upon this subject; but from such sources of information as are open, either to me or to him, I gather that what the House of Lords have done is simply to offer to the Government, and, what is much more important, to the people of Scotland in the first place, as regards that part of Scotland where the conditions do not differ in any sense whatever from the conditions in England, that measure of reform which the Government think enough for England. As regards that part of Scotland where the conditions differ from England, I understand the House of Lords to have offered to pass a Bill amending the existing Crofters Acts, which, at all events so far as it goes, I understand to meet with the general acceptance of every Gentleman in this House who represents a crofting constituency. And, as the right hon. Gentleman has, apparently, laid it down as a proposition that the House of Lords is never to be permitted to do anything which is not approved by those who represent particular areas, and as I presume, therefore, it ought to do everything which is desired to be done by gentlemen representing particular areas, I should have thought their fundamental duty, on the constitutional lines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, would have been to accept for the crofting counties that which the crofting Members desire should be accepted. Had they done so the crofting counties would not have been deprived, as they are now going to be deprived by the action of His Majesty's Government, either of legislation which they desire or of funds which have been promised them by this Bill, and which they will no longer be able to obtain. What is the excuse given by the right hon. Gentleman for thus depriving the crofter representatives of that which they desire, and for depriving the rest of Scotland of that which they think good enough for England? His reason—and his only reason—is that merely to delimit the crofter area is a task of such enormous difficulty—

I particularly said I gave that as an example of the difficulties, but that it was not, of course, the whole reason of the action we had taken.

I presume it was the most striking example of the right hon. Gentleman, otherwise he would not have given it. And what was this most striking example of the difficulties that lay in the way of this House carrying out the policy which I endeavoured to outline? The difficulty was this, that it would take us weeks, and even months—that was the exact phrase of the right hon. Gentleman—to decide this question of the delimitation of the crofter area. Under the guidance of the right Gentleman we took twelve hours, and twelve hours only, to discuss the whole question of a new rating Bill for Scotland; we took three days to discuss in a full House all the provisions—not merely the limitation provisions—contained in the Land Bill for Scotland; we took three days to discuss forty-five clauses of the English Bill, and why the right hon. Gentleman should thus suddenly change his whole views as to the proprieties of Parliamentary procedure, the liberties of Parliamentary debate, and the length of time which it is proper to take to deal with difficult questions on August 22nd passes my comprehension. It is, of course, quite obvious from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, not that he has the slightest desire either to carry out the wishes of the crofting Members, or to give to the other parts of Scotland the benefit of the Small Holdings Bill; his whole policy is based upon a desire to pick a quarrel with the other House. On that point I can only say that I cannot imagine that he could have chosen a worse subject on which to do so.

May I be permitted to say one word?

said the hon. Gentleman would only be allowed to ask a question.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who authorised the Earl of Crewe to state in the House of Lords last night that those who were entitled to speak for the northern counties concurred in the withdrawal of the crofters' portion of the Scottish Land Bill?

Lord Crewe did not make that statement by any authority from me, but the statement was quite correct. I received assurances from all sides—from within this House and from without it—that while the crofter county representatives were anxious to obtain these benefits for the crofters, which they have never received from the other side of the House except for some different purpose—I say, while they were so anxious, they submitted themselves loyally to what was considered the best policy and tactics—[Loud OPPOSITION cheers, which were prolonged for some time by Mr. Austen Chamberlain and other Members, until at last the right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat.] I had to sit down while the right hon. Gentleman—

rose and stood at the Table. As neither right hon. Gentlemen would give way, there were loud cries of "Order, order!"

I would venture to point out that the whole of this discussion being very irregular, the best way of bringing it to an end would be to use as little contentious matter as possible.

If I have erred on the point of contentions matter I apologize. But what I was saying was that Members in the House and their countrymen in their counties outside of the House have given unmistakable proof that they are not desirous of receiving any advantage for themselves at the cost of the rest of their countrymen.