said, that, on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House, they had the unusual honour of the Prime Minister coming in late in the debate, having no doubt been necessarily detained elsewhere; and, in a few earnest words, urging very strongly upon the House the importance of coming to an immediate decision. Being anxious, as he (Mr. Warton) always was, to treat every suggestion of the Prime Minister's with all possible respect, he might be permitted to remark that the right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, had not heard the extraordinary arguments and the strange figures put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He (Mr. Warton) was quite sure that the Prime Minister was as anxious as he was that the House should not come to a conclusion on that very important question hastily; that it should not come to a conclusion under a misapprehension; and that it should not come to a conclusion based upon figures which were misleading, if not absolutely false. It would be within the recollection of the House that the Chief Secretary for Ireland made use of a most extraordinary argument. It was this—that, where the Act was in force, there was only one case of Sunday drunkenness against 17 on week days. That constituted a specific allegation which he (Mr. Warton) wished to take this opportunity of challenging. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman did not represent what was actually the case. Anyone who had read the Returns would see that a misapprehension existed in the mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was, no doubt, led into the mistake by starting from a perfectly erroneous assumption—that erroneous assumption being, that the number of persons who had been taken up for drunkenness in the year ending April 29th, 1883, was 2,923 in the exempted cities; whereas, in truth and in fact, the number so taken up—-as shown in a Return ordered on the Motion of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart)—was not 2,923, but 1,248.

I hope I am not out of Order in correcting the hon. Member.

I think you are. ["Order!"]

On a question of fact, I stated that my figures were drawn not from the Return which the hon. and learned Member quotes, but from the Return of persons arrested for drunkenness, for being drunk and disorderly, and for crimes connected with, drunkenness. That makes the whole difference.

said, he accepted the correction of the right hon. Gentleman, but only to a limited extent. He protested against that new set of figures being sprung upon the House simply because of some complication that existed in the mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in mixing up arrests for drunkenness with arrests for crimes connected with drunkenness. It was a little too bad for the right hon. Gentleman to avoid dealing with Returns officially laid before Parliament, which perhaps he feared to face, and to spring upon the House a set of perfectly new figures which were not based on a correct standard. He was, therefore, perfectly correct when he said that the right hon. Gentleman proceeded upon an entirely false basis. He had no right, when dealing with the question of arrests on Sunday for drunkenness, to mix up with that question some imaginary number, derived he (Mr. Warton) knew not whence, and crimes connected with drunkenness. He should therefore stick to the test which he considered a right one—namely, that of arrests for drunkenness. He should proceed upon approved figures and upon acknowledged facts. The Chief Secretary had startled the House by drawing an alarming comparison between the one to 17 cases of Sunday drunkenness in the country with the one to six cases in the exempted cities. That was an utterly fallacious comparison; and the results could only have been obtained by the extraordinary process which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had now had the fairness to reveal. Taking a fair comparison of the figures, it proved that the proportion of arrests for Sunday drunkenness in the excepted cities was but one in 17 arrests, as against one in 15½ in the districts to which the Act applied. Therefore, the contrast was not very alarming. Moreover, the comparison was in itself somewhat unfair; because in the cities there were readier means of arrest than in the country. A man might be drunk for hours in a country place before he was taken notice of by the police; but in a city like Waterford or Limerick he would very soon be arrested. The difference in the ratio of arrests was more than accounted for in this way. In Scotland, where Sunday closing prevailed all over the country, the proportion of arrests for Sunday drunkenness was one in 680 of the population in the towns, and only one in 8,333 of the population in the country. Therefore, the chances of arrest in a Scotch burgh were about 12 times as great as in a country district; and, looking at the Irish statistics from that point of view, he held that the comparison was really strongly in favour of the cities. He would now institute a comparison between the state of Ireland 10 years ago and the present time. He was sorry to trouble the House with the figures; but those figures which had been already quoted by the promoters of the Bill were false both in then-sources and in their application. He would compare the years 1872–3 with the years 1882–3, which would show the real results of the Sunday Closing Act, and the figures he should give would be perfectly authentic. In 1872 the total number of arrests outside the five cities which were now excepted from the operation of the Act was 55,775, and in the cities 27,514. In 1873 the numbers were 62,516 and 33,107. The total for the two years in the country was 118,291 arrests. In 1882 the arrests were 68,482 in the country, and 19,015 in the cities; and in 1883 there were 68,903 in the country, and 20,623 in the cities. These figures gave a total for the non-excepted portion of the country during the two years of 137,385, as compared with 118,291 in 1872–3. The startling fact was here disclosed that there was an increase of 19,094 arrests under the operation of the Act. On the other hand, in the excepted cities, where drink was obtainable in an honest and honourable way, drunkennes had decreased. The arrests in those cities during the two years 1872–3 numbered 60,621; but in the two years 1872–3 they diminished to 39,638, showing a decrease of 20,983. The result of this Sunday closing legislation, therefore, had been what every student of human nature would expect—namely, that whilst there had been an increase of drunkenness in places where prohibition prevailed, there had been a decrease where the same interference was not permitted. Nothing disposed him more to be angry than to think of the utter ignorance of human nature which was displayed by those who brought forward these Bills. They knew very well that "Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant," and that when men were forbidden a thing, that was the very thing they proceeded to want. He recommended hon. Gentlemen to study the fables of their youth. There was, for instance, the fable of the chicken, who was told by its mother not to go near a well, and, of course, did so on the first opportunity. In dying accents the hapless chicken exclaimed—"Had it not been for the prohibition, I ne'er had been in this condition." The result of the prohibition of Sunday drinking was, that instead of drinking in proper and decent licensed houses, men were driven to get the drink they wanted, and for that purpose would have to resort to unlicensed and ill-regulated houses. That had been the case in Scotland, where shebeens had increased by many dozens, and in Ireland, where he believed the increase was even greater. Therefore, when hon. Members talked about the arrests—strong though that argument was—they must look carefully at what was known to be generally going on—namely, the determination of those who were not allowed to get honest liquor in an honest way, to get dishonest liquor in a dishonest way. Of course, people did not get such good liquor in the shebeens, because the keepers of those places, being subject to prosecution, must make great profits, and would not be likely to keep good liquors; and thus Parliament was creating, for no good purpose whatever, except the folly of some amiable enthusiasts, a class of men who were compelled to be law breakers. He had always admired the merciful spirit of our Criminal Law; but nothing could be more unmerciful than imposing extreme and unnecessary restrictions of this kind, which compelled people to break the law in defence of their honest rights. The House had been flooded with 13 or 14 county Bills for Sunday closing; and, in the debate on the Cornwall Bill, he gave a number of extracts to show how Sunday closing had operated in Wales. He would now boldly assert that the great majority of local and representative bodies in Wales, and all the associations entitled to re- spect, had testified their abhorrence of Sunday closing wherever they had experienced it. Town Council after Town Council had passed resolutions to that effect. Many who were ardent supporters of Sunday closing in Wales when it was only in prospect were now its determined opponents; and, when the next General Election came, many hon. Members who thought to retain, their seats by the aid of Sunday closing would find it necessary to reconsider the matter, and to recognize that public opinion had changed. In Cardiff there had been a great establishment of spurious clubs since Sunday closing was instituted. He (Mr. Warton) was not opposed to honest and respectable working men's clubs, and did not see why working men should not have clubs as well as other people. But he did object to clubs that were merely irregular and unlicensed drinking clubs, with a 6d. subscription, and power to take in any number of friends at any hour of the day or night; and that was the sort of club which had been established in Cardiff and Swansea since Sunday closing came into vogue. The police in those towns knew all about it, and Inspector after Inspector would tell you the same. Talking of Inspectors, he mistrusted the reports which were made by Inspectors in Ireland to the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the results of Sunday closing. When it was known that the head of a Department was so strong and bigoted a partizan, he would be sure to get reports of the nature he wished for. Moreover, it was not likely that these Inspectors would throw dirt at themselves by admitting that drunkenness had considerably increased in their districts. However, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not be able to upset or explain away the figures which he (Mr. Warton) had given, and which showed that, whilst drunkenness had increased in the prohibited districts, it had decreased in the excepted cities. It was, however, just possible that in the whole of Ireland there was a large temperance population. Well, he wished to see a decrease of drunkenness everywhere; but he observed that there was more hope of that in the removal than in the imposition of absurd restrictions, and in letting people get their liquor quietly and without any fuss and intrigue. He hoped to live to see the day when, amongst the humblest classes as amongst the highest, it would be considered a disgraceful thing to get drunk; but Bills of this kind would not advance that end one jot. In fact, this kind of legislation had a very bad effect. It inculcated the notion that a man need not look after his own morals, but must have them attended to by a grandmotherly Government, who would keep him straight under all circumstances. That feeling crippled the moral strength of a man and degraded him. The principle was that adopted by the mother of Mr. Verdant Green, who wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the University, asking that her son should be always in bed by 9 o'clock. In the same way these Sunday closing people said—"You must not drink on Sunday, because we think it wrong for you to do so. In our superior wisdom and sanctity we shall dictate to you and make you feel our power." Surely, it was a very moderate thing to have the public-houses shut from 2 to 7 on a Sunday; but all these matters were subject to compromises. There were extremists belonging to every Party. On one side, in this matter, there were many virtuous and high-toned, but narrow-minded men. On the other side, there were many who were dissolute, unthinking, and careless. But between the two extremes were the men of moderation. They were neither saints nor sinners, and they generally got their way. Personally, he was as much opposed to the attempt of the saints to inflict their notions upon him as he should be to any attempt of the sinners; he liked to steer with an even keel between the two classes of fanatics. He hardly knew whether the well-meaning fanatics did the most harm, or the evil ones. Now, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given the House some figures, and he (Mr. Warton) had given them some others, which he believed to be worthy of more attention. The fair and proper thing would be to investigate the matter fully and carefully. An experiment having been made, it would be more statesmanlike to appoint a strong Committee to inquire into its working and its results, than to precipitately legislate with a view to its extension and permanency again before the facts were thoroughly known. He was altogether opposed to Sunday closing; but, as a compromise, he would agree to have the experiment tried a little longer; but he objected to have this iron measure rivetted on Ireland until it was fully proved to be for the good of the country. He objected also altogether to the proposal to include the five hitherto exempted cities. Doubtless, there had been some agitation in favour of the measure; but that was an age when agitations were very easily got up. Men herded together in societies and associations; and very few took the trouble to think for themselves, and to carefully examine both sides of a question. They believed what they were told by a few active and unscrupulous agents, and so a popular cry was worked up. This Bill had been hastily concocted to gratify those who did not take the trouble to think, and who were anxious to press upon others regulations to which they did not conform, and to lay upon others burdens which they did not themselves have to bear.

said, that, as an English Member, he must apologize for interposing in the discussion, because he considered that an Irish local question should be settled by Irish Members themselves. He would, therefore, have left all the talking upon the Bill to them; but to his surprise, however, he found that not only were the Irish Members not unanimous on the question, but a large majority who had spoken in the debate were going to vote against it. [Mr. GIBSON: We do not want to talk it out.] The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) said he would vote for the Bill, not because he was in favour of it, but because he had promised to support it.

said, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension, and he was not opposed to the Bill.

said, that from everything he had heard, and considering the fact that a majority of the Irish Members were about to vote against the Bill, he thought he was justified in assuming that they were opposed to it. Were they or were they not in favour of it? [An Irish Liberal MEMBER: In favour of it all over Ireland.] Then he wanted to know why the Irish Members were not in favour of it? He was bound to say that he had seen no evidence of the measure being desired by the Irish people. On the contrary, although Peti- tions signed by many influential persons had been presented in favour of the Bill, he doubted whether, if the question was put to the vote of the Irish people to-morrow, they would find a majority in favour of it. He understood the hon. Members for Dublin were opposed to it, and the hon. Members for Cork and Limerick were not in its favour. He heard a great deal in favour of Sunday closing; but what he wanted to know was, why there should be a difference between closing public-houses on Sunday and on any other day of the week? He could quite understand the position of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who was opposed to drinking at all times. The principle of the hon. Baronet was straightforward and plain; but he was at a loss to understand what principle there was in preventing all drinking on Sunday; and much less could he see why, if such a principle was good, it should not be applied to the whole Empire, and especially to England. In London they knew it had been tried, and they also knew with what result. If they were in earnest in putting down drink, the way to do so was by setting a good example. Let them begin in that House by putting down the bar and withdrawing from their clubs. Why were the Lords and Bishops and rich men, who had well-stocked cellars, to enjoy their wine on a Sunday, and the poor man not to have the right of obtaining a glass of ale? The prohibition then should apply to the club of the gentleman, and no private drinking should be tolerated. He could see no reason whatever in favour of the measure; and if the hon. Member proposed his Amendment he should certainly vote with him.

said, that in Ireland there was a general anxiety that the Sunday Closing Act should be made permanent. There had been no change of opinion on this subject. ["Oh, oh!"] He believed he was right in saying that fully four-fifths of the Irish people were in favour of Sunday closing, and that a majority of the Irish Members would be found voting in favour of the Bill. ["No, no!"] He had attended scores of public meetings in Ireland, and found that the working classes were thoroughly in favour of Sunday closing. He would ask the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), and others who opposed the Bill, to allow a Division to be taken upon it, so as to test the feeling the House. In that case he believed that the Irish Members would not go into the Lobby against it. Indeed, he doubted if 10 Irish Members would vote against it, if they were allowed to go to a Division. It was absurd to say that the Irish people were not in favour of the principle, seeing that it had been in partial operation during the last six years, and that it had been admittedly a great success in repressing drunkenness. He would not waste time further in discussing the Bill; all he asked was that the House should be allowed to express its feeling upon the question by going to a Division.

said, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken good care not to give an opportunity to the Irish Members to express their opinions. If the Bill had been in charge of a private Member, he (Mr. Leamy) could have understood that he would seize any opportunity of bringing it under discussion; but this was a Government Bill, and he thought it was not fair that it should be taken at a time when the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that those who were opposed to it were absent, and had not, on account of the short notice, an opportunity of being present. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had stated—and he (Mr. Leamy) would like to know how he obtained the information—that four-fifths of the Irish people were in favour of the measure; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland also stated that the Government had investigated the matter, and also found that the people were in favour of it. They were now made aware how the Government had arrived at that conclusion. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said the Executive had made inquiry of the Resident Magistrates and of the Local Government Board. He also spoke of the Report of Dr. M'Cabe, who said he had spoken to many persons well acquainted with the feelings of the artizan classes in Dublin, and Dr. M'Cabe said the artizans and labourers might be divided into three classes, one of which he described as an honest class, and he said the honest working men were in favour of it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that he did not approve of that description; but the Report went on to say that there was a certain portion of the working classes of Ireland, hard drinkers, who desired to have public-houses open, and who would get drunk whether the houses were closed or not. Of that there could be no doubt. Upon that the right hon. Gentleman remarked that the Bill would certainly put difficulties in the way of such people. Did the right hon. Gentleman not think that there were many people in England suffering from the same temptation, that he should go to Ireland in order to teach them not only how to obey the laws of England, but also the laws of God? The right hon. Gentleman quoted statistics in regard to Sunday arrests for drunkenness before and after the passing of the present Act. What he (Mr. Leamy) should like to know was, whether there was any means of ascertaining at what hour these arrests were made? "Was it quite clear that some of them were not the results of Satin-day's drinking? The arrests on Sunday were really no test at all, because arrests made after 12 o'clock on Saturday might be set down as Sunday drinking—whereas, as a matter of fact, the drinking took place on Saturday. He would submit that they should be arrests made after the time of opening public-houses on Sunday; because, if they did not, they must include a number of arrests which could not have been produced during the five hours the public-houses were open. He believed it would be found that this had not been done, and the Return was, therefore, worthless for the purpose it was quoted. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Scotland as an example in favour of the Bill. All he (Mr. Leamy) could say was that he saw a statement made a short time ago, that, in Scotland, they were doing a roaring trade on Sunday, not in public-houses, but in mock clubs. He saw a statement the other day, that the police had been occupied lately in arresting the people who made use of these clubs as they went out. Then, in regard to Wales, he saw that at a meeting lately, the Mayor, he thought, of Wrexham, stated that there had been more drunkenness in Wrexham since the passing of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales than on any other day of the week. The right hon. Gentleman had asked the question, if Sunday closing would lead to a decrease of Sunday drinking; and, out of 74 who answered, 25 were in the negative and 20 in the affirmative, and there were a good many answers which could not be classed as either affirmative or negative. It was clear that there was no unanimity on the subject. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that Sunday closing gave rise to unlawful drinking houses; and, if so, what was the good of the Act? Then the right hon. Gentleman asked if the closing would be likely to lead to illicit distillation; and on that question three answered in the negative; but he (Mr. Leamy) found that while illicit distillation in England and Scotland was very small, there being only 16 in England, and 14 in Scotland, in Ireland no fewer than 883 cases were reported last year. He thought that was not very satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had hardly treated the House fairly in regard to this question. He knew very well that when the Act was first passed, it was only passed for a certain number of years, in order to see how it would work. Now it was proposed to make the Bill perpetual, not only in regard to the country embraced in the former Bill, but also in regard to the case of the other five cities. That was surely entirely unfair. Before they proposed to make the Act perpetual for the five cities they ought surely to see how it would work, as they had done in the counties. Then the right hon. Gentleman, who had professed his desire to carry out the wishes of the Irish people, might have waited until the Franchise Bill had been extended to Ireland. At present, the franchise was not such as to indicate the feeling of the people of Ireland on this matter. The people who now gave an opinion were, to a large extent, those who would not be affected by the Bill; but the majority of the people who would be affected had no means of giving effect to their opinions. It had been said that the priests of Ireland were in favour of the Bill. Now, he could never understand the attitude of the Irish priesthood on the subject. If the publicans were such bad people as they sometimes heard painted in sermons, surely they were as bad on a week-day as on a Sunday; and then the Irish priests, to be logical and consistent, should call upon the Government to close public-houses not only on Sundays, but also on holidays. These days were quite as holy as Sundays, and there was certainly more temptation on those days than on Sundays, because the people were all idle and crowded into the towns. In fact, holidays were of all days those in which he would have thought restrictions on drink might be required. He thought he was justified, also, in saying that if the priests were opposed to Sunday drinking in public-houses, it was open to them to come forward and set up in every village a good national club; and he hoped the Bishops and priests would set to work to found in every village a good national club and library, where they could meet, so as to give the people some means of intellectual enjoyment. In that way they might, perhaps, learn something of the sort of Government under which they lived. Another matter that he did not understand was the action of Tipperary and Wexford in this matter, and why they should he so anxious for the Bill. These two gallant counties for many years passed a voluntary law closing the public-houses on Sunday within their limits, and the Tipperary and Wexford people obeyed that law, as to which he made no complaint, because they made it themselves. However, they did not seem to be satisfied with their own laws, and so they came over there to have them ratified by an alien Parliament; and not only that, but these two counties, having passed this law for themselves, were not content until, contrary to all their principles of Home Rule, they forced it on other places like Waterford, that did not want it. He thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had acted unfairly in bringing forward such a measure as this without due notice to Irish Members. He knew that to hon. Members in Dublin 24 hours' notice was not sufficient; and those who were not opposed to it in principle were opposed to the manner in which it had been brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman said they must take this measure before they would go on with any other Irish Business, and he charged them with keeping back the Purchase of Land Bill by opposing the present measure. He (Mr. Leamy) told him that, when resolved to oppose a Bill, he would oppose it without any regard to what Bill might come after. The Government had tried the experiment of such a Bill as the present in England, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had inquired if such a Bill would be likely to lead to disturbance in the large towns in Ireland. He found that they were a law-abiding people, and not likely to create a disturbance; but it was an extraordinary announcement that one of the reasons put forward in favour of the Bill by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, that the Lord Lieutenant was satisfied that there would be no disturbance in Dublin if it were passed. Did the right hon. Gentleman know what he was saying? Was it to be laid down as a principle that a good law could not be passed for Ireland without a fierce agitation, and a bad law could not be averted without riot and disturbance? It was quite ludicrous that Lord Spencer should feel such a concern for the souls of the people of Dublin. They were making an experiment on the people of Dublin, and he did not believe it would be possible to enforce the measure without great discontent. There had already been great reason to complain in Ireland of the way in which the present Act was administered as a kind of political engine, and so they would be sorry to see it extended. Public dinners to Members of Parliament were entered by the police, and people taking part in them were prosecuted. Only the other day that took place at New Ross, though he could hardly say that he was sorry for New Ross, as on Friday they had its Representative (Mr. J. Redmond), who was so insulted, calling for the extension of Sunday closing to the rest of Ireland. It was true that the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that he had given instructions that it should be discontinued; but so long as it could be used as a political engine he did not think Irish Members would help the Government in passing it. A great deal had been said of the popularity of Sunday closing in Scotland; but Irishmen were not like Scotchmen, although he believed the Scotch people came originally from Ireland, although they had not the humour of the Irish about them. They were strict Sabbatarians, and therefore Sunday closing was, to a great extent, germane to their disposition. The Irish, on the other hand, went in for amusement upon Sunday, and marched about to the music of the fife and drum. They went in, too, for a great deal of excursion, and therefore it was not fair to them to offer them a Scotch Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked to put into the Bill a clause to prevent the Bill being applied as it had been to prevent gentlemen of the same politics dining together at an hotel, and also to give the magistrates no discretion in granting exceptional licences on the occasion of such gatherings; but he would make no concession whatever to the wishes of the Irish Members. As he had said, they were told practically that until the Bill was passed, no other Irish legislation would be taken up. "Beggars cannot be choosers." That was the spirit in which they were to be treated. Well, whatever the Government threatened, he would oppose this Bill; and he thought his Colleagues, although some of them were in favour of the principle of the Bill, would oppose it also, because of the unfair manner in which its opponents were treated. He could not understand why Government should be so anxious to have the Bill passed now, especially as they could obtain, for another year at least, all they wished for by the passing of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The country, too, would have full opportunity of understanding the measure before irretrievably committing themselves to it, for everyone knew how extremely hard it would be to get it repealed if it once passed into law. He hoped the Bill would not pass this Session, and he was perfectly convinced that it would not.

said, he wished to offer a few observations upon the Bill, as he had given close attention to the subject of it for a large number of years, and had likewise done all he could to ascertain the feeling of his constituents, the people of Dublin, in respect to it. Here he wished to say he considered the Irish Members had a good right to find fault with Her Majesty's Government. Some weeks ago, Tuesday and Friday nights were given to the Government, in trust, for the special purpose of enabling them to pass one or two great measures; and it was now particularly inconvenient to find them departing from that honourable engagement, by forcing this Bill upon the time of the House, while measures far more urgently called for were set aside. The Irish Members wanted to see the question of Poor Law Administration and the Law of Settlement disposed of. These matters had been pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but all that could be got from him was the promise that Bills dealing with them would be brought in without delay. He certainly would have great cause to complain if the promised measure was made to give way to this one, on which there was such a wide difference of opinion in Ireland. Both he and his hon. Colleague had warned the right hon. Gentleman against bringing forward such a measure as this; but he regretted to say that the Members for the City of Dublin were on that occasion treated with scant courtesy both by the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Lieutenant; and here they had a Bill brought in in direct opposition to their wishes, and in the very teeth of the advice they had given the right hon. Gentleman. His experience told him. that there was a strong feeling in Dublin against closing the public-houses in the City of Dublin; and although the right hon. Gentleman might succeed in inducing the House to pass this Bill, he would fail to carry with him that general consensus of opinion on which the success of a measure like that entirely depended, and the Government would go on manufacturing artificial crime without in any way forwarding the cause of temperance. This, too, was the opinion of a most illustrious individual, the wisest Prelate in Ireland, than whom no one ever upheld the character of his high office in the Church with greater dignity. He alluded to his Eminence Cardinal M'Cabe, whom he had consulted on this question of Sunday closing, and from whom he had received the following letter:—

4, Rutland Square, Dublin, Feb. 18, 1884.

"My dear Dr. Lyons,—On the receipt of your letter of the 15th inst. I communicated with the parish priests of the city with the view of obtaining their opinions on the Sunday closing question. I need not tell you that these clergy-men have had their attention frequently called to the subject, and that their intimate relations with their parishioners give them abundant opportunities of studying the question in its relations to the advancement of temperance. Were it clearly proved that the closing of public-houses in Dublin on Sunday would have the effect of guarding our people from the dangers of intemperance there would not be the slightest difference of opinion amongst the clergy. But as there are very strong arguments for and against the measure, the parish priests are divided on the subject. On one point they are unanimous, that the hours during which public-houses are now open might be profitably restricted. On the question of earlier closing on the evening of Saturday there is perfect unanimity also, as all are convinced that excessive drinking on Saturday night is most provocative of drunkenness on Sunday. My own private opinion on Sunday closing has never undergone any change. On one occasion, a few years ago, I was waited on by a small deputation of gentlemen, for whose experience and judgment I entertained the highest respect. They pressed me very strongly to sign a declaration in favour of Sunday closing in Dublin. As the question resolved itself into a matter of mere opinion, which involved no principle, and as the deputation stated that they spoke with the authority of very largo experience, I complied with their request. I did not care to insist upon my own opinion, which possibly might be erroneous now, as it was founded on the experience of other times when, happily for myself, my duties brought me into constant communications with the classes for whom the contemplated legislation is intended. I feel now that I should not have been persuaded to sign the document in question. Reviewing the whole subject, and keeping in view the danger to which in the present state of our people the closing of public-houses all day on Sunday is likely to lead, I would be sorry to see it enforced by a stringent law. From what I have heard within the last few days I am inclined to believe that a compromise between the contending parties might be effected. I think if these houses were allowed to be open between the hours of 2 and 6 o'clock p.m. on Sunday their owners should agree to close at 10 p.m. on Saturday night. This latter arrangement would, in my opinion, do the greatest good.—Believe me, yours sincerely,

"E. Card. MACCABE."

He had forwarded that letter to the right hon. Gentleman, and had commended it to the attention, of the Government, as it would be practically impossible to enforce such legislation as was now proposed. He had been connected for the last 25 years with one of the largest hospital establishments in Dublin, and he was sorry to say that amongst the most painful cases treated there were those of intemperance, and many of those cases were admitted during the time when public-houses were closed, and when the presumption of the law was that there was no possibility of getting drink—namely, on Sunday mornings. There were several cases he could bring forward in support of his statement, and he would refer to one in particular, in which a child, only six years of age, was brought into the hospital insensible from the effects of porter. He had taken great pains to inquire into the matter; and there could not be the smallest doubt that a vast quantity of drink was consumed within the hours when the public-houses were closed on Sundays; and they had this result—that the wives and children of early age were made to participate in the drinking, and the children had become drunkards at an early age. The clergymen who had had practical experience had assured him that the foundation of drinking habits was most conspicuous in those places where private Sunday drinking was common in consequence of the regulations in force against Sunday trading. The class of clergymen of whom he was speaking were constantly in the habit of visiting houses where it was suspected secret drinking was going on, and they told him that in numerous houses which they visited they found quantities of drink stored. In one house, in particular, was a small room in which several dozens of porter were consumed on a Sunday morning before 10 o'clock. He was speaking to one of the unfortunate people who happened to be a victim of drink, and he asked him—"Where on earth he got the drink on the Sunday?" He replied— "I have not the slightest trouble in getting drunk six times over on the Sunday before 10 o'clock in the morning." He then asked him—"How about the police?" and he explained that it was impossible for the police to check this evil of secret drinking, for those who were in the habit of drinking did not frequent the same place, but went from one house to another on different days. Similar testimony had been given him by the police themselves. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland chose to glean a little practical experience on the subject, and of the working of the Act in Dublin, and to act the part of Haroun-al-Raschid, he (Dr. Lyons) would undertake to be his guide, and he could not imagine any more useful function that he could perform than this. He (Dr. Lyons) would guarantee the right hon. Gentleman's safety among the working classes of Dublin, who he confidently asserted had no sympathy with lawless violence. He was quite sure of this—that he would be convinced that any attempt to deal with this question by prohibitory legislation, or by multiplying regulations, would be perfectly useless. Reform must come in a totally different way from that of legislative action. They could not legislate so as to coerce men into sobriety; for nothing they could do, nor would any amount of ingenuity, keep men from drinking if they wished to do so. He had had pointed out to him in Dublin no less than 70 private places in which drink was to be had; and it was perfectly impossible to deal with this evil by any direct system of legislation. The hon. Member was then proceeding to refer to the case of Scotland, when—

rose to Order. He wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was not transgressing Rule 13 of the Standing Orders, which dealt with repetition and irrelevance?

The hon. Gentleman has certainly spoken at great length on this subject, and the House has shown symptoms of impatience. I cannot, however, say that so far he has transgressed against the Rule in question; but, possibly, the hon. Member may see his way to curtailing his remarks.

, resuming, said, he was speaking on behalf of the citizens of Dublin and as their Representative; and he respectfully submitted that, on a question of that kind, he was fairly entitled to make any comparisons that were fail-and pertinent to the case. He was not ready to admit that he had repeated anything he had said; and if he had given instances which he thought necessary for the enforcement of his views, after the recent experience they had had of Cabinet Ministers talking for four hours on particular subjects, he did not think the House would consider that he had been speaking too long on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in Order, in discussing the question before the House, in referring to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade?

The hon. Member is not transgressing any Rule of Order.

, again resuming, said, the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) had evidently come there not to hear argument, but with a settled determination to vote in a particular direction, and all argument, therefore, was wasted upon him. He had confidence in the good sense and fairness of the House, and should address his observations to the numerous other hon. Members whom he saw around him. He should be sorry indeed to see the City he represented submitted to the stringent system of legislation that existed in Scotland, and which was productive of a vast amount of demoralization. He deplored most deeply the demoralization which followed the indulgence of illicit drinking. He claimed to be as strong an advocate of temperance as anyone; and he would venture to say that by inculcating temperance principles, whenever he had had the opportunity, he had succeeded in making many converts to temperance —he would not say teetotalism—in away that many hon. Gentlemen might not imagine. He always believed that the better mode to keep people from excessive drinking would be to teach them to use those drinks for the purpose of enjoyment and refreshment which they could with safety employ. For instance, he would refer to a case in which he had succeeded in inducing a number of workmen to substitute tea for porter and whisky during their work by persuasion. ["Order, order!"]

I am bound to say with regard to the remarks which the hon. Member is now making that they do not appear to me to bear upon the subject before the House.

said, he was coming to the point. He was merely pointing out how it was perfectly easy, in a case like that to which he was referring, to insure the conversion of people to temperance, and he was going to say that these men became substantial temperance men. They did not drink again after having had this experience of the value of tea.

I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask if the hon. Member is in Order in going on deliberately with exactly the same sentence he was using when you called him to Order?

I was waiting to see whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking to the point. I confess that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman do not seem to apply to the subject before the House, which is that of drinking on Sundays.

again resumed, and proceeded to observe that he believed if more facilities were given to the labour- ing classes on Sundays for using non-intoxicating drinks there would not be so much drunkenness. That was a point in the urging of which he did not yield to his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine).

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether, in a debate on the Sunday closing of public-houses in Ireland, the hon. Gentleman is in Order in discussing my opinions and conduct?

I rise to Order; and I appeal to you, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) is not entitled to your protection from the hon. Member for Scarborough?

not replying,

proceeded. He thanked the hon. Member for Scarborough for his interruption. If the hon. Member was enthusiastic on this subject in his way, he (Dr. Lyons) was also enthusiastic in his way; and he hoped the hon. Member would give him credit for speaking his real sentiments on the subject. He was going to refer to the results, which he was fairly entitled to do, of Sunday closing in Wales. A very remarkable meeting took place in Wales not long since, at which two Roman Catholic clergymen spoke, and their testimony was that the result of Sunday closing had been most disastrous to the cause of temperance. They had themselves visited localities where drink was illicitly sold, and they gave a horrifying picture of the scene. Men and women and numerous children were congregated together in close rooms, with large quantities of porter before them; and large supplies were in the houses; and these clergymen expressed the greatest possible regret that they had been advocates of the measure, not knowing the demoralizing-effects to which it unquestionably led. With this evidence before them, he must say to ask the House to vote in favour of Sunday closing was to ask them to do something which was extremely wrong. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to prove that Sunday closing was capable of reforming the evil. He had to apologize to the House for speaking so long; but the question was one which so vitally concerned his constituents that he had felt bound to do so. His experience was that the large majority of the people of Dublin were opposed to the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had favoured them with a number of figures bearing on this subject. He (Dr. Lyons) regretted that there was not sufficient time to discuss them at length. He ventured to think his right hon. Friend would not question the independence, judgment, and great ability which distinguished the Irish Bench. Now, a very considerable number of the members of that Bench had particularly remarked upon the great increase in the number of arrests for drunkenness in the districts in which the Sunday Closing Act was in force. He (Dr. Lyons) had carefully avoided questions which had previously been discussed in this debate; but, if the House wished it, he was perfectly ready to go into the figures at length, and he had a large supply of figures with him which he might quote to them. He could only promise them, that if the Bill stood over to another day, he would then venture to lay those figures before the House; and he believed he should be able to show that the figures so triumphantly given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland were based on pure fallacy.

, in rising to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to move—

"That the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners upon the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Soot-land demands the immediate attention of the Government, with the view to giving legislative and administrative effect to its recommendations,"

said, he was extremely sorry that the Motion was not still in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), as he (Mr. Macfarlane) would rather have taken part in, than introduced, the subject to the notice of the House. He would remind hon. Members of a discussion which took place in the House on the 4th of August, 1882, in regard to this subject, and the Resolution, which he moved on that occasion for the appointment of a Royal Commission. The statements which he made on that occasion, and in which he referred to the depopulation of the Highlands, had been contradicted, and he had been told by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. J. Ramsay) that it was a pity this subject should be dealt with by men so ignorant of the subject. The hon. Member, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate of that time, declared that the population of the Highlands had not decreased; but, as a matter of fact, according to Census Returns, his statement was quite correct. In Argyll, alone, for example, during the last 50 years they had lost 24,505 persons out of a population of 100,573; and taking the general increase of population throughout Scotland, which amounted to 78 per cent during that period, Argyll had now only 76,000 persons, instead of 150,000, giving a population of 24 to the square mile. The Lord Advocate said if they took Scotland county by county, the Highlands were more thickly populated now than at any period of which they had an authentic record. The figures he (Mr. Macfarlane) had quoted, however, he thought, showed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in making that assertion, was entirely in the wrong; and he (Mr. Macfarlane) now gave them in order to prove the allegation he had then made, and which had been contradicted. "With reference to the Royal Commission, which had, after all, been appointed, and its Report, he might say that he objected at the time of the appointment of the Commission to its constitution. He thought it was not sufficiently repre- sentative of the class into whose grievances it was to inquire. He would say, however, as to the noble Lord the Chairman of that Commission (Lord Napier and Ettrick), that it would be a long time before the people of Scotland would forget the kindly and sympathetic manner in which he had fulfilled his functions as Chairman, and the desire he showed to protect the people from the wrong which had been inflicted upon them. It was impossible to read the Report of the Commission without seeing that the noble Lord was in keen sympathy with the people. He would not refer to the other Members of the Commission, beyond saying that his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) was a friend of the people. As to the Report, he asked the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The Government would probably plead that they had not the time to introduce a Bill so as to deal with the question; but he would suggest that they might withdraw the London Government Bill, which the citizens of London did not want, and then they would have abundant time. As a citizen of London, he confessed that he could still live without much suffering if that Bill were not proceeded with; but the people to whom he referred were not in a position to wait. This Commission was either to be a substantial protection to the people, or it was not; and if it was not, instead of proving a blessing, it would prove a curse to them. Even now, the people said they were being evicted, because of the evidence which they had given before the Commission. Although this statement was denied by the Duke of Argyll, he (Mr. Macfarlane) believed it nevertheless to be strictly accurate. It was, of course, very difficult to prove that that was the case, because it was hard to see into the motive of the landlord, when he gave notice to the people to quit; but a deep conviction undoubtedly existed in the minds of the people, and he believed it to be a well-founded conviction, that they were being evicted because of the part they had taken in this agitation, and in consequence of the evidence they had given. He had seen a letter which had been addressed to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, on behalf of some of the crofters, written by a lady, showing that it was not the fact, as alleged, that the persons evicted had been evicted for non-payment of rent, and that, in many instances, there had been no arrears of rent due. It was firmly believed that they had been evicted from a feeling of vindictiveness. As a Scotchman, he maintained his right to interfere in this question; and as he had some experience of a similar class in Ireland, he submitted that what was done for them might well be claimed for their fellow-subjects in Scotland. But there were opposite cases; and the lengths to which some landlords were prepared to go was shown by the statement of General Burroughs, who refused to give indemnity to those of his tenants who gave evidence before the Commission. He said the property was his, and if those people were not content and happy, they could go away. That was a glaring example of the extent to which the rights of property could go. People who had been born and bred on the property for generations before the General was heard of, and whose forefathers had lived on it for hundreds of years, were told they could go away. He hoped the Government would act on the recommendations of the Royal Commission and remove the grievances of these poor people. If there was any trouble in store in the Land Question of Scotland—and he thought there would be trouble unless the Government took immediate steps to remedy the grievances—it was due to the abuses of the rights of property. The screw had been turned once or twice too often, and the people were now resisting. He had always urged that the principal cause of distress among the crofters was the curtailment of their holdings; and he would cad the attention of hon. Members to the passages in the Report, in which the Commission distinctly affirmed that proposition, and he could not use stronger words than were used in the Report. The question of the increase of rent, which was another great grievance, was also dealt with by the Commission. In the first place, there was the difficulty of area; and, in the second place, there was the question of the increase of rent, both of which were substantial grievances. The next point to which the Commissioners referred was the waste land appropriated for purposes of sport; and several of the witnesses denounced deer forests as a most demoralizing institution. In following passages they described how, through these causes, the crofters and cottars were driven down to the seashore to practise fishing without any practical knowlege of that occupation, and without either boats or harbours; so that they were not able to make a living. The agitation, in the opinion of the Commissioners, had no chance of subsiding until the fair demands of the crofters had been met. They had been accused of being very unreasonable. Everybody who objected to abuses was accused of being very unreasonable. He was sure that he himself, at least, was a moderate and reasonable person. He was not going to propound any remedies whatever for the state of things depicted in the Highlands by the Royal Commission. Her Majesty's Government had referred this question of the crofters and cottars to the arbitration of a Royal Commission. They named their own arbitrators; and all that he asked the Government to do was to carry out the award that had been given. He did not use stronger language than the Commissioners had done. They had shown that there were intolerable grievances affecting, perhaps, 40,000 families and 200,000 persons. Must the crofters agitate in a violent manner before they obtained anything? Let them not, for Heaven's sake, have a premium put upon violent agitation. That was the inevitable consequence of refusing the demands which were made in a peaceable manner. It was impossible that the intelligent crofter should not contrast his condition with that of the Irish tenant, and ask to what the difference was due —whether it was due to violent agitation in the one case, and to peaceful, quiet, law-abiding habits in the other? The crofter had a right, was absolutely entitled, to claim that, under the same Government and under the same Crown, he should be put in as good a position as his brother tenant in Ireland. But they did not ask even that. They did not ask for an Act like the Irish Act; but they simply asked the Government to fulfil the award of their own arbitrator. If that were refused, they would ask violently, and more violently, until they were put upon the same footing as their Irish brethren. He could not conceive that it could be any objection to the demand that it was made by a Scotch Member for an Irish constituency. The Home Secretary, he believed, was full of compassion for the Highlanders, among whom he had passed a great deal of time. Let him show his sympathy by carrying out the award of the Commission he had himself appointed, and which had been chosen by himself. He would now move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

, in seconding the Motion, said, the thanks of the nation were due to all the Commissioners, and especially to Lord Napier and Ettrick, its Chairman. Their Report had been adversely criticized from the landowners' point of view as regarded their interests; and, solely because it had been so criticized, he would say it was equally capable of being criticized from the crofters' point of view. If anyone regarded the Report of the Commission from the crofters' point of view, they would find ample evidence of the landlord element in the constitution of the Commission, and it bore evidence of its having been drawn up by men of the landlord class. Indeed, four of its Members held between them 1–63d part of the land of Scotland and l–20th of the land devoted to deer forests. When the Commissioners said the evidence was influenced by prepossessions, it might be retorted that the Report was similarly influenced, for, to his (Dr. Cameron's) mind, it most unmistakeably evinced the fact that the four Members he had referred to had not overcome their inborn prejudices, their innate sense of justice not being sufficient to enable them to do so. The Commissioners refused to stereotype evils by granting fixity of tenure, but they recognized the evils resulting from so large a proportion of land being devoted to deer forests; they recommended certain restrictions, but they would apply them only to future and not to existing cases. They referred to the delegates evicted after having given evidence before the Commission, expressing their regret if anyone had suffered in consequence. No one could read the Report without being convinced, that had there been an infusion on that Commission of those in the crofter interest, the subject would have been dealt with in very different language. They would, in that case, probably have referred to the evidence of evictions for the posses- sion of a gun or a dog, or for marrying against the wish of the landlord. It was evident to anyone who read the Report of the Commission, that the Commissioners sought to avoid all irritating matters; and the effect of that avoidance had been that the Report was quoted to show that there was no grievance in the Highlands. If anyone, however, wanted to understand the significance of the Report of the Commissioners they must read between the lines. The Commissioners, for example, recommended that official residences should be provided for Sheriffs in the Highlands to render them more independent of landlord influence. What did that mean? He had in his hand the account of an eviction which took place, the subject being a medical man who was medical officer of health for the district, and also medical officer of the prison. He wrote a report to the Board of Supervision on overcrowding in his district, and also with reference to the amount of hospital accommodation; and thereupon he was evicted. He had a practice in the town, but no one was permitted to let him a house. He had to remove his family to a distance, his practice failed, and the man shortly afterwards committed suicide. That was one of the things he read between the lines of the Report. The Commissioners, with respect to the payment of rent, recommended that no tenant should be allowed to take over arrears of rent. In some cases tenants paying £4 a-year were compelled to take over arrears of £12 or £16, and the reason was this — if at any time it became desirable to evict them, they could be evicted, for they were always three or four years in arrears. Another great complaint made was of the damage done by the deer coming down from the forests; and this Commission, largely composed of owners of deer forests, proposed that there should be an inalienable right in every tenant to shoot deer trespassing on their arable lands. The appropriation also by landlords of commons was a fertile source of quarrels; it was at the root of almost every agrarian dispute. Well, in Shetland and Orkney the Commissioners declared that wherever a division of common lands took place, the rights of the people and of the occupiers ought to be respected. Having described the scope of the Commissioners' recommendations, the hon. Member went on to say that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would tell them that he had not time to consider the proposals made on behalf of the crofters with a view to legislation. Well, he (Dr. Cameron) would ask — How many years did he want to consider the subject? Why, the vast majority of the proposals had been before the country again and again for years past. What had been done in the way of giving the Scotch crofters a better security of tenure? A recommendation to that effect was contained in a Report before the House in 1851; or of giving them the advantage of a better technical education, as had been proposed by Sir John M'Neil. They had all heard of Mr. Walker's Report to the Royal Commission on Land of 1880. Well, Mr. Walker recommended that townships should be laid down in eligible sites with long leases? In 1871 there was a Truck Commission, which reported emphatically against truck. The Crofters' Commission recommended that truck labour and truck sale offish should be put an end to. Was that a novelty, and would the right hon. Gentleman deal with that recommendation? And one of the Sub-Commisioners of that Truck Commission not only reported strongly against truck, but, in collecting evidence for that purpose, he was so strongly impressed with the importance of the Land Question, that he said the present insecurity of tenure was inconsistent with a stable relationship of landlord and tenant. He said it might be maintained that, in the present state of agriculture, no tenure so short as one year ought to be permitted. Well, that Report had been before the country for 12 years, and what had been done in respect to it? Another recommendation was that no Procurator Fiscal should be allowed to engage in private practice. So obvious was the advisability of this from a legal and administrative point of view, that the present Home Secretary and Attorney General—when in Opposition—voted in its favour, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury gave it his support; but when he (Dr. Cameron) brought up the matter the other day, and while the Report was in the hands of the Lord Advocate, the Government turned their backs on the proposal and voted against it. Some of the most important recommendations of the Commission might be carried into effect by a stroke of the pen; they had been repeatedly before the House, and the Government, if the Blue Books regarding Scotch affairs were not treated as so much lumber. Then, as regarded increased grants for Education, the Vice President of the Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might settle the matter between them in a very short time. One of the most important recommendations of the Report related to the giving these people instruction, through the medium of teaching the Gaelic language. But that was a recommendation suggested by Sir Joseph Kay-Shuttle worth in 1874, and by the Scotch Education Commission in 1875. Why was it not attended to? There was likewise postal and telegraphic communication to be accelerated. The Commissioners had told them that there was a great fishing industry at Barra; but the fact that it took six days for a letter, and three for a telegram, to reach that point from the mainland was a disgrace to any civilized country. Could not the Postmaster General do something to improve such a state of things? The Commissioners also recommended that training ships should be sent round among the Western Islands, in order to afford the lads there an outlet for serving their country. Would his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty order a training ship to go to those Islands, instead of trying to pick rip boys among the slums of cities? The chief objections to the Report had been taken by the Commissioners who dissented, and others, to that portion of it which related to the creation of townships. It was said that that was a retrograde step, and would have the effect of perpetuating poverty in the Islands. That was not his opinion, nor was it the opinion of Lord Napier and Ettrick, who wanted to bring benefits within the reach of all through the commune. In the words of M. Laveleye, the township or commune was "the organic cell of the social body;" for nothing could replace that powerful bond which attached the individual to his native village and the cultivator to the soil. He would beg Her Majesty's Government to do something to show that they did not mean to shelve the Report of this Commission, If they allowed it to drop, there would result from the appointment of the Commission a great deal more harm than good, because suspicions would be aroused which could not but work immense mischief. Many proprietors had already been stimulated to take steps to decrease the number of their tenants. He was, however, happy to say that a number had acted differently—such, for instance, as the hon. Member for Caithness (Sir John Sinclair) and the Duke of Sutherland, who had made liberal proposals with that view. They had said—"This Report shows a bad state of things, and we will have it remedied." But that was not the case with others who had taken action in the Courts. If the Government could not introduce legislative measures that year, let them do something in the way of the administrative reforms which he had shown could be effected by a stroke of the pen. The present state of opinion in Scotland was favourable to action. The people of Scotland were long-suffering; but they were pertinacious, and they were thoroughly aroused on this subject. The Government might dislike this question. He quite understood that it might give rise to Party difficulties; but it appeared to him that a good deal too much was sacrificed to Party interests in that House. The matter was not one that could be allowed to sleep. At present, he believed, the people of Scotland were prepared to accept this Report; but, if they were denied this Report, they would fall back upon the evidence, and their demands would probably be much more radical. At the present moment, as compared to what it would be in the future, the. question was—

"As a little fire quickly trodden out,

Which, being suffered, rivers will not

quench."

said, he should not think it right to vote against the Resolution of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane). But whether he should support the hon. Member or not would depend upon whether he thought it worth while to alter the terms of his Resolution in order to secure that support, seeing that he recommended legislation in a direction contrary to what he (Mr. D. Cameron), for his part, thought desirable. Before he could vote for the Resolution it would be necessary to add words to show that it would apply only to that portion of the Report which had been unanimously signed. He (Mr. D. Cameron) doubted whether the time for raising the question was either opportune or wise. Last year the question was forced on the attention of Parliament; for there were, unhappily, many manifestations of irritation and of lawlessness, which formed the subject of general comment. But, besides, there was an unusually bad harvest, which produced discontent. The result was that the subject was brought before Parliament, and he believed it to be the duty of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes which produced this state of things. That Commission was appointed, held a number of meetings, and, after unusually protracted sittings, they at last issued a Report, which was now the subject of discussion. He supposed it would be considered unlikely, if not impossible, for any Government, in so short a period as had elapsed since the presentation of the Report, to be prepared with any legislative proposals on the subject. He therefore thought that this debate partook more of the nature of an academic discussion than of a practical legislative character. He had still greater doubts as to the wisdom, of the course now pursued. Once a debate was started in that House, it was not always easy to foresee the result; and he could easily understand that there were others who might wish to take part in this debate—Representatives of large burghs, and who might fully sympathize with the crofters, but who yet felt that they had amongst their constituents persons equally steeped in poverty; and if these great advantages were to be bestowed upon the crofters, their constituents might ask a share. Therefore, if the object of the hon. Members supporting the Resolu- tion was to propose legislation in favour of the crofters, they might well consider whether they did good by discussing the question at the present moment. If the Government had been left alone, it would have been almost impossible, having themselves recommended the appointment of a Commission, to allow the question to be shelved. He conceived it would be their duty, and he believed it would be their duty, now or early next Session, to undertake some legislation. Referring to the speeches which had just been made, he felt no reason to blame their tone. He considered, on the whole, that they were moderate, and they contained nothing which he could object to; but he was bound to say that the hon. Member for Carlow, in his quotations, hardly did justice to the Report, as representing the views of the Commissioners in regard to deer forests. If he had continued the quotation, the House would see that the Report declared "that not only landowners but the whole community benefited by the system." The hon. Gentleman also talked as if the present race of landlords were the oppressors of the people; but he (Mr. D. Cameron) defied anyone to find a single word in the lie-port which justified that assertion. It was notorious that the complaint of the crofters were not made against the present landlords, but landlords of 60, 70, or 80 years ago, who dispossessed them of the lands which they thought they ought now to be allowed to reoccupy. Another point which he thought had not been established, although frequently asserted, was, that those who had given evidence before the Commission, had been, in many cases, evicted in consequence. That statement had been denied; but the truth of the matter might easily be ascertained by inquiring whether the names of the evicted crofters corresponded with the names of any of the witnesses. He should like to say a word to those who objected to the Report on different grounds, and, among others, that it was very little less than a thinly-veiled Communism. Those objections were directed against three portions of the Report of the Commission — 1, the constitution of the townships; 2, the compulsory 30 years' leases; and, 3, the large demands proposed to be made on the Public Exchequer. With regard to the first of those points, he held himself entirely free from all responsibility. Hon. Members would see that he protested in a Memorandum, which had been added to the Report, against this recommendation of the Commissioners as to townships, on the ground of injustice, and as by no means advantageous to the crofters. From that Memorandum he had nothing whatever to retract. If there was one thing more than another which the crofters demanded, it was more land; and it was clear they could not profitably occupy more land unless they had the means to stock it. That was the key to the whole position, and the recommendations of the Commission on that point he looked upon as by far the most important portion in the Report. How did the Commissioners propose to deal with the matter? In their Report they stated that they were not without hope that occupiers of townships, partly from their own resources, and partly with the assistance of their friends, would be able to stock the land. But he must say that if they had resources, this question would never have arisen. Another recommendation was aid from friends. Well, he knew that during the last 30 years, many of the inhabitants of his own district had emigrated to New Zealand and Australia, and they were in the habit of sending money home as a gift, not as a loan, to their friends. It could not be supposed, however, that those friends, who had gone abroad, and had their own way to make, would send, say, £100, home on loan, without any security, to a corporate body called a township. Another mode the Commissioners referred to, for stocking those townships, was the multiplication of stock by the process of natural increase; but he was afraid, in the West Highlands, nature was not so kind as farther South, and that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Commission (Lord Napier and Ettrick) must have taken his idea as to the prolific character of the stock in the Highlands from the prolific nature of the people. In many parts of the West Highlands cows did not calve more than once in two years; and they considered that if every 20 ewes had 12 or 14 lambs, and they only lost 20 or 25 per cent in the first winter they were tolerably well off. There was not much room, therefore, for multiplication of stock. He believed that if the recommendation of the Report as to town- ships were made law to-morrow not a single new township would be created in the Islands—from the Butt of Lewis to Barra Head. With regard to the compulsory 30 years' lease, he ventured to say that was a practical proposal, and for that reason he was a warm supporter of it. He did not say that there were not portions of land favourably situated that might not be profitably occupied by the crofters; but what the Commission recommended was, that the high land and the low land should be taken together, and that the "tit bits" should not only be taken, while the unprofitable land was left. Speaking as a landlord, he did not see how, under proper restriction, there could be any objection to granting a lease to ail industrious tenant; or, even in fixing the rent, if it were fixed according to the custom of the district. He held, on the contrary, that it would form ail element of strength to the land; and he believed, also, it would add to the value of the estate. With regard to the third part, which recommended the expenditure of a large sum of public money, he, as a Member of the Commission, had signed that part of the Report with considerable hesitation; but he thought they made the best recommendation they could. He hardly saw how they could avoid something of the kind. They were instructed to report on the condition of the crofters, and they found that condition iii most places exceedingly bad, and the cause was undoubtedly poverty; therefore, they had to try and find a remedy for that poverty. Of course, if they were to be helped out of that poverty, it was necessary that they should recommend assistance which should be of a comprehensive character. The Commission had not the power to make those grants. It was the Government and Parliament which made these large grants; and it would be for Parliament to decide the order in which these matters should be dealt with. He was glad that the Resolution which had been submitted affirmed the principle that no Land Bill would be satisfactory to the crofters in the Highlands which was not accompanied by some administrative remedies. He would like to indicate his own idea of what would constitute a fair solution of the difficulty, and what they had a right to expect from the House of Commons. He admitted that, when he began his labours, he thought the difficulties were so stupendous that he and his Colleagues would be unable to find any remedy. But, at the same time, he felt they had to do their best to find some solution, and they would have been unworthy of the confidence of Her Majesty if they had not brought forward some proposal. The first and most important point to be dealt with was the erection of harbours and piers for fishermen; and he saw no reason why the Government should not appoint some Scientific Commission to report on the harbours and piers which might be constructed for the benefit of fishermen. It would not be necessary that the money should be found all at once; but he thought Parliament was bound to set aside a certain sum of money every year—not, perhaps, a large sum—in order to assist the fishermen, and to instil in them some confidence that their case had not altogether been neglected. He also thought some means should be devised to remedy the grievance connected with the heavy education rate, which pressed very hardly on the people of the Highlands. Then he thought provision should be made—and this would not be costly—to promote voluntary emigration, so as to relieve the congestion of the population in certain parts where it had been ascertained that, if the whole land were divided amongst the people, there would not be enough to support them. He also thought that assistance might be given by loans, taking the security of the landlord, to enable the crofter to settle on and stock the land now occupied as sheep farms or deer forests. And, lastly, there was the proposal, to which he had already alluded, to make it compulsory on the landlord to give 30 years' leases, with full compensation at the end for improvements. If approved by the Government and sanctioned by Parliament, these proposals would he believed be accepted gratefully by the crofters and their well-wishers. If they asked more they would likely run the risk of losing all. If the House of Commons should see fit to give effect to some such proposals, a spirit of contentment would be aroused the importance of which could scarcely be over-estimated, and the present irritation and despondency would give way to a feeling likely to produce among the crofters oblivion of the past and hopefulness for the future.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) had rendered good service to the House in bringing the subject before it. He (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) would press the Government to indicate what they intended to do with regard to the recommendations of the Commission, as it was absolutely necessary that the Government should make a declaration that they would do something. He had no hesitation in saying, from his own personal knowledge of the Highlands, and from what he saw in the course of the investigations of the Commission, that the country would not be satisfied unless the Government took very decided action in the matter. With regard to the question of townships, two other Commissioners and himself were very clear upon the point; and the Chairman (Lord Napier and Ettrick), who had not hitherto been familiar with the subject, had come to the distinct conclusion that the recognition, expansion, and adoption of the township in the Highlands was the only way in which they could immediately benefit the people of the Highlands and the Islands; and in that view he entirely concurred. With the extended franchise which was to be conferred upon them, he had no doubt that the townships of the crofters would form most valuable centres of political intelligence. He should, therefore, be very sorry to see the townships suppressed. Another point to which he wished to refer was the deer forests. He had very unwillingly, and with great hesitation, signed the Report upon that subject in deference to the opinions of his Colleagues, and only in order to have a unanimous Report. What was the state of the Highlands with regard to deer forests? He believed that the acreage of Scotland altogether was some 18,000,000 or 19,000,000, and it had been stated that about 2,000,000 of those 18,000,000 were at present under deer forests, which had been created within the last 50 years. Now, that was bad enough; but it was not the whole truth, because those 2,000,000 of acres were almost entirely in the Northern half of the country beyond the Grampians; so that, in reality, they must take those 2,000,000 of acres out of, not 18,000,000, but about 10,000,000 of acres. Thus, in reality, so far as the Highlands were concerned, the deer forests extended to about one-fifth of the country. In consequence of the demand for sport, these forests were now so closely shut up, that they were of no use whatever for any purpose but sport. It could not, however, be supposed that they could allow the system to go on; and that was a subject that the Government must take up immediately. It was with the very greatest hesitation, as he had said, that he put his name to a Report which did not interfere to some extent with the existing forests; but, in regard to future forests, it was high time that Government interfered. He had lately seen an advertisement announcing that a farm of 20,000 acres was to be sold on the West Coast of Scotland; and, as an inducement to purchasers, it was stated that there were no tenants or crofters on the land. That he called a shameful advertisement. The first wish of a purchaser of a large tract of land ought to be that it was inhabited by contented and prosperous people. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department knew that the people of the Highlands were a quiet and peaceful people; but it was very often found that people of those characteristics were, wken roused, very difficult to deal with. Their grievances were entirely social, differing from the case of Ireland, where separatist views were largely held; while the Highlanders, on the other hand, were among the most loyal people in Her Majesty's Dominions. He did not ask the Government to state what they were going to do, but that they would say that they would do something; and he trusted that they would, without delay, take some action in accordance with the recommendations in the Commissioners' Report.

said, that the last speaker (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) appeared to wish that the House should form the opinion that the landlords in the North of Scotland had sacrificed the interests of the population for the mere luxurious possession of a sporting ground. He could not agree with the hon. Member in that opinion. To his mind, the land was devoted to that purpose for which it was best fitted; and, when natural products were devoted to the purposes to which they were best suited, the interests of those who were concerned in working those products were best served. Hon. Members talked as if those who possessed deer forests used the land for a purely selfish purpose. But the land was used for the manufacture of sport, which was a better business, if he might so express himself, for the population concerned in it, than any other trade now carried on in the Highlands. He asserted, from his own experience, that the classes who were concerned in the manufacture of sport, arising out of the deer forests, got better wages, were better housed, and were better off in every respect, than the classes who were concerned in sheep farming and other agricultural pursuits in other districts of the Highlands. Great prosperity was found in the neighbourhood of deer forests. It might be said that these forests were capital things for the population who remained upon them, but bad things for the people who were cleared from the land. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but it was not to make deer forests, but to make sheep farms, that the great clearances in the Highlands had been made. What was the real evil from which the crofters in parts of the Highlands were suffering? It was poverty; and the crofters were poor because the country was treated in a very niggardly manner by nature, and because parts of it were exceptionally and unduly crowded. He thought the Commissioners had not carried on their investigations in accordance with the dictates of common sense. What the Commissioners, in his opinion, ought to hare done, was to have gone and coin-pared those parts of the Highlands where the crofters and peasantry were prosperous, with those parts where the population was far from prosperous; and, if they had done so, they might have arrived at some conclusions as to the conditions which went to produce prosperity. There was a district of the Highlands, with which he was acquainted, that could compare favourably with any other part of the United Kingdom; and the reason was not far to seek, for the population was about half what it was 60 or 70 years ago. Before that reduction in the population, this district was in a state of poverty. Now, there was no part of the United Kingdom where the peasants were more independent, or more prosperous. [An hon. MEMBER: Where is it?] A part of Ross-shire. He would give any hon. Member the details. That being so, in regard to one part of the Highlands, was it not natural to suppose that over-population was the cause of the misery and poverty of other parts? If that were so, how was this extraordinary proposal for establishing communal property likely to diminish it? The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had quoted an article in which he said M. de Laveleye had recommended the establishment of village communities in England. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not recollect that article; but he was very confident that so good an economist would not commit himself to any such proposal.

He deals with what is referred to by the Commissioners.

Yes; but the question was whether he had really grasped the question. No writer who was a competent authority, and who was acquainted with Indian, Russian, and other communes, would recommend that anything like the old system of common property should be restored.

No, no; communal government.

said, the recommendations of the Commission went beyond that, and meant the restoration of the system of common property. To adopt any such scheme would be a retrograde, and not a progressive, measure. What, in his opinion, they ought to do, was to aim at diminishing the population, and bringing about some balance between the soil and the population the soil had to support. When they had done that, he, for his part, should gladly accept such subsidiary recommendations as had been made by his hon. Friend (Mr. D. Cameron); but until they had done that, until they had discovered the effects of the Highland climate and the Highland soil, and until they had diminished the population in the manner which had been suggested, he believed by adopting recommendations such as those of the Commissioners' Report, they might perpetuate and render permanent the evils which they all deplored, but they would never do anything materially to diminish them.

said, that no one who retained a recollection of certain platform orations could fail to be struck by the sober and earnest tone of some of the speeches delivered in the course of the debate, or venture, without some fear and trembling, to con- tinue the discussion lest, in view of the solemn warnings of hon. Members, he should have to invoke police protection on leaving that House. There were few spectacles more sublime than that of an hon. Member, who was notoriously wooing a Scotch constituency, enveloping himself in the folds of philanthropy, and posing as the champion of a downtrodden people. He could assure the hon. Member that he did not intend to yield one jot to him in the matter of regard he had so suddenly developed for the crofters, not only in the county he (Lord Colin Campbell) represented, but in the Highlands of the North and West of Scotland; but he did wish to express the hope that the House would not be led by the Report of the Royal Commission to sanction what he was sure would result in hasty and ill-considered legislation upon this subject. That Report was a very bulky document, and it was founded upon some 3,900 pages of evidence, and it was perfectly monstrous and absurd to ask Parliament, within three months of the issue of the Report of the Commission, to sanction every single re-commendation contained in it. The hon. Member for Carlow was, no doubt, quite within his right in raising a discussion on this subject; but he (Lord Colin Campbell) objected to the terms of the Motion, which asked them to give immediate effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. He did not for a moment question that the hon. Member for Carlow had mastered all the contents of that volume, for nothing was too large or too small for his brain. But he should have considerately borne in mind that there were some brains less capacious, some appetites less insatiable, some digestions that were unequal to work of this kind. The hon. Member ought to rest satisfied with having been the first to bring the question before the House — an honour for which, within the last few years, there had been a pleasant rivalry between him and the hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Macintosh) and Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). The hon. Member had complained of the composition of the Commission. But if the name of the hon. Member for Carlow had been substituted for that of the hon. Member for Inverness, he had a strong suspicion that the hon. Member for Car- low would not have brought this matter forward, and they would have heard no complaint as to the constitution of the Commission. He had been among the first to urge on the Government the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission; and he must say he did so mainly because he thought it most impolitic to allow the people of Scotland, or any part of them who believed they were labouring under grievances, to drift into Hibernian methods of agitation. ["Oh, oh!"] He had never had much hope that anything could result from it, because he could not see that, with the exception of the introduction of the Irish Land Act, there were any conditions essentially different from those which obtained when Sir John M'Neill made his Report to the Board of Supervision in 1852. Now, what had been the result of this Royal Commission? Whatever might be said as to its recommendations, it had undoubtedly astonished and puzzled the country. It was a Report which was full of inconsistencies and anomalies requiring much attention and sifting. So grave, indeed, were these inconsistencies and anomalies, as well as some of the recommendations, that there were some grounds for the suspicion that the Report was never intended to be taken seriously by Parliament. He believed the truth to be that the six Gentlemen who composed the Commission were not able to agree upon the main recommendations which were urged upon them by the noble Chairman, and that the Report was really a compromise between their varying and discordant views. A very able pamphlet had been circulated, written, he believed, by the Professor of Political Economy at Edinburgh, in which some of these inconsistencies and anomalies were exposed. He did not wish to go at length into the question; but he wished to enter his protest against the extraordinary doctrine of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who spoke of the recommendations of a Royal Commission as if they were the "award" of an arbitrator, and called upon Parliament immediately to give them effect. That was a doctrine which would place Royal Commissioners above Parliament. The hon. Member for Carlow had not given the House any proof that persons had been evicted for giving evidence. With regard to that portion of his speech which dealt with, the subject of depopulation, the fact was, that the hon. Member omitted to notice that the decrease in the population of rural Scotland to which he had referred was not confined to the Highlands, but was general all over the country; and the Royal Commissioners themselves repudiated the idea that it was due to evictions. The hon. Member had not brought before the House a single atom of proof; but had merely told them what was his belief, and had asked the Government to take action in consequence of that. The Commissioners, however, had themselves said that many of the allegations of oppression and suffering with which the pages of that Report were loaded would not bear searching analysis. The most important recommendation of the Commission was that relating to the township system, and yet it was supported only by four out of the six Members. He believed the introduction of the township system would be a retrograde movement, and would end in the very system which was in vogue at the time when Sir John M'Neill conducted his inquiry in the Highlands, and which was contemporaneous with that great famine in the Highlands that called for the utmost exertions of public and private charity. One of the recommendations of the Commission was that Parliament should provide funds for making fishermen's harbours. He must say he hoped the Government would see their way to take steps in that direction; but he could not forget that, while Parliament was advised to take this step, a Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), was still sitting on that question, and it was extremely doubtful whether its recommendations would tally with those of the Royal Commission. That, he thought, was in itself one reason why the Government was justified in waiting. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow that there were recommendations which deserved the attention of the Government; but most of them referred to questions which came under the cognizance of Departments, and might be left to the Heads of those Departments. He found it impossible to vote for the Motion, because he wished to leave the entire question to the mature consideration of the Government.

I have listened with great interest and attention to this debate, and I think that no one can fail to have been struck with the extremely earnest tone that has been, adopted by most of the hon. Members who have spoken, whatever may be their differences of opinion upon the subject. I cannot help referring to the speech of my hon. Friend opposite the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. D. Cameron). There was one part of that speech which I am sure we all heard with regret, and that was the announcement that he will shortly cease to be a Member of the House. A more wise or more temperate speech, or one which could do more credit to the sympathies of the hon. Gentleman's heart, it would be impossible to conceive. Well, Sir, I also listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) who introduced this Motion, and to the speeches of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and others who have spoken to-night. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) deplored the fact that I am not a Scotchman, and he expressed a great deal of sympathy with me on that account. But I have endeavoured to repair the defect of nature in that respect as much as possible, and I venture to say that there are a great many Scotchmen who have not seen or known as much of the populations of the West Islands as I have. My hon. Friend the Member for the borough of Inverness (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) has been good enough to allude to some remarks I made on the subject when I had the honour of receiving the freedom of the great City of Glasgow. At all events, there is no one in this House, or out of it, who has a more entire appreciation of the qualities of these populations or a greater desire to remove the grievances and the sufferings which they at present endure than I have. My hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane) who introduced this subject began with some reference to the test of population. Now, I have long and carefully examined that question, and I am quite sure that you cannot safely rely upon the increase or decrease of population as a test or guide in this matter. You will find some places which have decreased in population, but whose prosperity is unquestionable; and you will find other places which, have increased in population, but which are in a very miserable condition. Let us take the county of Argyll, which has been referred to by previous speakers. If we take up the statistics in reference to the population of Scotland, we are at once struck by the decrease which has taken place during the last 40 years in. the population of Argyllshire. It would be an entire mistake to say that a part of that decrease has not been due to eviction. No doubt, a small part of the decrease is duo to eviction; but what has been the great cause of the diminution? Why the enormous increase in the neighbouring City of Glasgow. The prospect of higher wages has induced large numbers to leave the counties of (Scotland for the large towns. Everybody who knows anything of the rural history of England knows that the great distresses which existed in counties like Dorset, Somerset, and Wilts, were due to the fact that the manufacturing industries which formerly existed there had emigrated to the North. Scotland has suffered from misfortunes of the same character. One industry in Scotland has now disappeared, and in many places great misery has been left behind. The manufacture of kelp in the Western Hebrides supported and encouraged a largo population which, when the manufacture disappeared, had no other means of subsistence. Unless, therefore, we bear all these facts in mind we shall be misled by mere statistics of population. Generally speaking, it is said that the increase of population is a proof of the prosperity of the place in which it takes place. That is not always the casa. In the Island of Skye there has been a certain decrease of population; but in the neighbouring Island of Lewis there has been an immense increase of population. Is it true that the increase of population in Lewis has been contemporaneous with, or caused by, the prosperity of the Island? One of the few counties in Scotland in which the population has diminished is the county of Kinross, which is represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. No one will say that because Kinross has diminished in population it is less prosperous. I find there is an increase of population in the Orkneys; but I am certainly not of opinion, though I do not know the Orkneys very well, that that is due to an increase of prosperity. Neither will I say that I believe the decrease of population in Perthshire is a test of decreasing prosperity in that county. I only refer to these matters in order to show how careful we must be in applying the test of population.

I only referred to the decrease of population in some counties with the view of substantiating the statement I made two years ago, and which has been denied, and not for the purpose of proving prosperity or otherwise.

I do not desire to misrepresent the hon. Member; but I know that in discussions on this subject population is very often taken as a capital test, whereas, in reality, it is no test at all. Now, Sir, I beg the hon. Member to believe, and I ask the House to believe, that the Government are not insensible of the great and pressing importance of this question. The very appointment of this Commission is proof of that. That the Government do consider the Report of the Commission a very important circumstance in the case I beg to assure hon. Gentlemen; but I observe that it is from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Eraser-Mackintosh) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. D. Cameron) that the most moderate and prudent counsels as to the manner of dealing with the Report have been heard. Now, Sir, with reference to this Report. Everybody is aware of the difficulties surrounding the large questions with which the Report of the Commission deals. The subject-matter of the Report is divided into three classes. First of all, there is the question of the tenure of land, and everybody knows that that in itself is a most difficult question; secondly, there are certain financial proposals — proposals which involve the expenditure of large sums of money, and which, therefore, require to be looked at from many points of view; and, thirdly, there are certain administrative proposals upon which I shall have something to say, I hope not unsatisfactory, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and in regard to which the task of the Government is not so difficult, as the matter of administration comes more within the scope of the action of the Government than any of the other matters. Now, first of all, let me speak upon the question of the tenure of the land. I cannot admit the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), that the Report of the Royal Commission is like the finding of an arbitrator—a thing which the Government had nothing to do but to execute. That, certainly, is not in accordance with the Order of Reference. The Reference given to the Commission was that—

"Whereas we have deemed it expedient that a Commission should forthwith issue to inquire into the condition of the Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and all matters affecting the same, or relating thereto."

That is a view of a Royal Commission which has never yet been taken; indeed, if such a view did prevail, the Government would do extremely wrong in ever appointing a Royal Commission at all, because by so doing they would altogether destroy the responsibility of the Executive, and shift it to the shoulders of other people. Now, as regards the question of the tenure of land, I am not at this moment going to express any opinion. In my judgment, it would be extremely wrong for the Government to express loose opinions either for or against upon a question of such immense importance, unless they were able to legislate at once—unless they were prepared at once, on their responsibility, to introduce a measure upon the subject. Individual Members might do so; but it would be inconsistent with the duty of the Government to make loose statements upon a question of so important a character. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) has suggested that we should sacrifice the London Government Bill, and thus afford an opportunity of dealing with this vexed question. Even if we were to abandon that Bill, I am by no means sure that we should be able to settle this great Scotch Land Question in what now remains of the present Session. Now, with reference to the immediate urgency of this matter. I do not deny there is a part of the matter concerning a portion of the population which, is extremely urgent; but I see with satisfaction that the Commissioners say—

"On the whole, we cannot entertain a, doubt that the small occupiers of the Highlands and islands hare participated in no small degree in the benefits which modern legislation and commerce, and the prevalence of philanthropic principles in government and individual action, have conferred on other classes of their countrymen. We remain under the impression that while in the whole community there was a larger proportionate number of persons living in rude comfort in former times, there was also a larger number in a condition of precarious indigence. The average amount of moral and material welfare is as great now as at any previous period, and the poorest class were never so well protected against the extremities of human suffering."

That is the finding of the Commissioners upon the general condition of the small occupiers in the Highlands. And then, Sir, when I come to the recommendations of the Commissioners in respect to the alteration of the Land Law, I am struck very much by the fact that it is admitted by the Commissioners themselves that the recommendation with reference to the communal holdings, which is deserving of examination, does not touch or deal with the condition of the poorest class who most largely demand our sympathy. The Commissioners say—

"It may be objected to the scheme which has been proposed, that the protection and encouragement afforded to the higher class of crofters above the level of-the £6 line are withheld from those of an inferior condition, forming, in most localities, we regret to say, the vast majority, and who may need such safeguards equally or more. This must be admitted. The poorest sort are here endowed with no formal security against eviction or excessive rents. The inequality of treatment is manifest, and may appear unjust. If we allow it, we do so not from a want of sympathy for the class excluded—we accept an evil to avoid a greater evil still."

Now, what is the greater evil to which the Commissioners refer? Why—

"To invest the most humble and helpless class of agricultural tenants with immunities and rights which ought to go hand in hand with the expansive improvement of the dwelling and the soil, would tend to fix them in a condition from which they ought to be resolutely, though gently, withdrawn. These people ought either to pass as crofters to new holdings of a higher value, or take their position among the cottars as labourers, mechanics, or fishermen, with a cottage and an allotment, or migrate to other seats of labour here, or emigrate to other countries."

It is quite plain, therefore, that in this respect there is a great grievance, and we have to consider how far we can deal with one class of people upon the prin- ciple of fixing them on the soil, and deal with another class who most require consideration on the principle which would resolutely, though gently, withdraw them from the soil. Now, we have had, as we always do have, a very able speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour); but I am bound to say I entirely dissent from his views on the subject of deer forests. That deer forests have been carried a good deal too far, is an opinion I have held for a long time; and I cannot agree with the view the hon. Gentleman has expressed on that subject. It is quite true that diminution in the population of Scotland was originally due to the formation of large sheep farms. I never walk in a Highland strath without seeing the ruin which has been caused by sheep farming during the last half-century. I am very sorry that the black cattle, which in the old days were found perfectly consistent with the exercise of moderate sport, have disappeared. In the old forests—not the creations of modern times—the deer were fewer, but they were bigger. Better sport was not to be had than was to be found in the ancient deer forests; indeed, people were satisfied to walk a whole day to get a shot at a big buck. It is not inconsistent with sport that the black cattle should be on the hills; but if people are determined to have deer forests very much under circumstances which would exist if there were preserves of pheasants in the suburbs of London, the conditions are totally changed, and the population must necessarily be removed. I believe that one of the causes which have led to the distress which we all desire to allay—one of the causes which have led to the discontent we all desire to relieve—has been the undue extension of deer forests in Scotland. There are other recommendations which are very important, no doubt—namely, the financial proposals of which my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. D. Cameron) spoke. The hon. Gentleman said—"We went to the West Highlands, and we found that one of the great causes of the misery of the population was poverty." That is a great cause of misery everywhere; but when you have proposals to relieve misery and poverty out of the public purse, you have to look into the matter very carefully. Such relief cannot be confined to one part of the country, or to one class of the population. When, in order to relieve misery and poverty, you propose to take money out of the pockets of people who are just as poor as those to whom it is to be given, the House will at once see the difficulties which beset the use of money in this way. After all, public charity is like private charity; and, unless it is administered with discretion, it will tend far more to pauperize than enrich. Therefore, when you come to Parliament with a large proposal for a financial grant, which is to be levied on all parts of the country—England, Scotland, and Ireland—for particular purposes, that, I say, is a matter which must be extremely carefully considered before a responsible Government could assent to such a demand. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to say that, in his opinion, relief ought to be given in respect of the education rate. The hon. Gentleman said—"You compel these people to receive education, and at the same time call upon them to pay an education rate." But that is an argument which cannot be confined to the Islands of Scotland. [Dr. CAMERON: Excessive rate.] Well, but there is a large number of people in England who complain of the excessive education rate. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: It is 5s. or 6s. in the pound.] I am not going into details. All I want the House to do is to look at the nature and magnitude of the financial proposals, because then they will see how carefully the proposals ought to be considered before a final conclusion regarding them is arrived at. My hon. Friend also referred to harbours. Again, I think that is a matter deserving of most careful consideration; indeed, it is now being considered. I think the East Coast of Scotland has as much claim as the West Coast, because, although the West Coast has claims, it is better furnished with natural harbours than any part of the world I know. One of the great attractions in yachting on that coast is, at least to me, that you cannot go five miles without finding a capital harbour somewhere, which nature has given to the coast. You may knock about the English Channel all night and not be able to get into harbour; but on the West Coast of Scotland you may drop your anchor almost anywhere and feel as safe as if you were in dock. All these claims upon the Public Exchequer have to be looked into and well considered before the Government can take action in regard to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) referred to another matter—namely, postal and telegraphic communication. I may say that long before I joined the Government I was constantly persecuting the Postal and Treasury authorities with demands as to the improvement of postal and telegraphic communication in the Highlands of Scotland; and I am not sure I should not receive some censure from the First Lord of the Treasury if he only knew the number of telegraphic stations which I have been more or less instrumental in procuring in the Highlands. I am informed that the Department has taken administrative action with the view of meeting the complaints which had been made on this head. Well, then as regards the sending of a ship of war to these coasts. [Dr. CAMERON: Training ship.] Of course, I cannot answer for the Admiralty; but it seems to me that what the hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) suggests is not at all unreasonable. I think that a great Naval Power like England should avail itself of every opportunity of making its forces available for civil purposes in times of peace. Then the hon. Member says he wants a light ship at Stone Ferry. So do I. When I was with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) the other day on the Trinity Lighthouse ship, I said to him—"It is quite patent there is a want of beacons in the entrance to Stone Ferry." I do not understand why more has not been done in that direction. These are all the chief points to which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) referred, and I am not at issue with him on any one of them. The Government do not approach this subject in any other than the most sympathetic and friendly spirit; but I hope I have shown that it would be quite impossible for them to embrace in its entirety the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane). Because, what does he do? He endeavours to pledge the House of Commons, many of whom cannot have carefully studied the He-port, by an absolute Motion to the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee. That the Government should give immediate attention to the Report I entirely agree, and they have given immediate attention, to it. I have studied this Report as carefully as it is possible to do, and I am satisfied that the Government cannot assent in terms so absolute to give legislative and administrative effect to all the recommendations it contains. If, however, the hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) means that the Government are only to do so much as they reasonably can I entirely agree with him. The Government are perfectly alive to the urgent importance of the question; we are attending to it and are anxious to give effect, at the earliest possible moment, to such recommendations of the Committee as we think will be found to be practical, useful, and advantageous.

said, he thought the House generally was inclined to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and he trusted that the Government would next Session bring in a Bill, giving effect to the views of the Members of the Government responsible for these administrative reforms. There was one point that the Government should have regard to—namely, the excessive amount levied in school rates in some parishes of the Highlands. He had hoped that the Home Secretary would have given some attention to this point. Then there was an administrative reform, of some importance to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not alluded, and that was with regard to the administration of justice. On that point the Commissioners reported very strongly indeed; in fact, their recommendations went much further than anything he desired to urge on the House. They recommended that the Sheriffs should be placed in a position of complete independence. The recommendation to which he invited special attention was that Procurators Fiscal, who were so closely identified with the administration of the law, should be prevented from carrying on any private work or business from which they derived profit other than their official legal business. In a Question he had put to the Lord Advocate he had called attention to the fact that the Procurator Fiscal in the Island of Lewis, which belonged solely to one proprietor, was also the law agent of that proprietor. This was against the principle which was laid down a good many years ago by the then Sheriff of the county, who declared the functions of factor, or land agent, to the proprietor and Procurator Fiscal to be altogether incompatible, and not such as should be performed by one person at the same time. It was very discouraging to the Scotch Members and the people of the Western Islands to hear the Lord Advocate defend the existing system; for the right hon. and learned Gentleman had declared, in answer to his (Mr. Barclay's) Question, that he did did not see any impropriety in the law agent of the proprietor of the Island of Lewis acting also as Procurator Fiscal for the Crown. There were grave allegations against the administration of justice by the Procurator Fiscal. The Lord Advocate had been induced to make inquiries; but, presumably, he had made them of the Procurator Fiscal himself. The accounts he (Mr. Barclay) had received from independent sources were very different from the statement of the Lord Advocate; and he would urge on the Home Secretary—for he presumed he, in theory, was still the Minister for Scotland—the necessity of his interposing in this matter, and of exercising the authority of Secretary of State in such a manner as would assure the people of the Western Islands that they should have someone amongst them representing the Crown who would deal with them impartially and see that justice was impartially administered. At the present time it was not easy for these simple people to know whether the law agent was acting on behalf of the Crown or of the proprietor; and it was very easy to see, under such circumstances, that the people of the Islands had great reason to be dissatisfied with the administration of the law. They were at a loss to know whether it was the proprietor or the Crown who was acting oppressively against them. There was great reason now to apprehend very serious difficulties in the Islands. The people had been waiting a long time, and had become somewhat impatient, to see what was going to come out of the Report of the Royal Commissioners, on which they built very great hopes — far greater hopes, he was afraid, than were likely to be justified. When they saw the result of this debate, and understood that very little could be done by the Go- vernment—he was not blaming the Government; but, in the nature of things, that would be the case—they would be very disappointed. The Government, he held, were responsible for seeing that the representatives of the Crown were placed in a position to deal fairly between the landlords on the one hand, and the crofters on the other—to deal with them in such an impartial manner as could not be expected from a person holding, at the same time, the positions of prosecutor for the Crown and law agent for the proprietor. That was the point he wished to urge on Her Majesty's Government. There could be no doubt that great dissatisfaction existed in the Western Islands as to the administration of justice there. Somewhere about 10 years ago, it was alleged that disaffection existed owing to the action of the factor of the proprietor, who held also the post of Procurator Fiscal. The Sheriff of that time satisfied himself, by inquiry, that the action of the gentleman in question showed that the post of Procurator Fiscal and the duty of factor to the proprietor were inconsistent, and he caused him to hand in his resignation. The course taken by the Sheriff fully justified the Commissioners in their Report, and fully justified him (Mr. Barclay) in urging on the Government the necessity of doing something to render satisfactory the administration of justice in the Western Islands, and to satisfy the people that they had in the service of the Crown one who would act towards them fairly and justly in the administration of the law.

said, he would not trouble the House with the remarks he had intended to make on the subject, although it was a subject of great importance, because he believed that at so late an hour the discussion ought to cease. He would only make one observation as to going to a Division. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) proposed to take a Division. He (Mr. Bryce) confessed that, looking at the whole position of the debate, and at what had been said by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with such fulness and precision, with regard to the different recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission, he doubted whether much would be gained by going to a Division. He would suggest to the hon. Member that it would be as well to rest content for the moment with the assurances of the Home Secretary. He trusted they might depend on what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the Government taking action as soon as possible on the points he referred to, and also on the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, the importance of which was very great. Everyone who read the Report must feel that there was considerable danger of oppression, and that it was actually practised, particularly in remote parts of the Islands. There were difficult financial and legal questions with regard to the constitution of the township communities, the establishment of which the Commissioners had suggested, questions which required to be well weighed before legislation could be undertaken. It might be taken, however, that the Government were so far awake to the importance of the matter that they would probably announce and bring in next Session a measure dealing with it. Meanwhile, he hoped that no further time would be lost in effecting those administrative reforms to which the Report pointed. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane) shared the favourable impression which had been made in most quarters by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, it would not be necessary to divide.

said, he did not agree with a great deal which had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He did not think that to hold up deer forests to such an amount of abuse and opprobrium was at all warranted by the facts. What was the recommendation of the Commissioners as to the deer forests? Why, that provision should be made for protecting the crofters against any diminution of the arable or pasture area now in their possession. He believed those words would be endorsed by nearly every Member of the House. What was the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He gave them a terrible account of the depopulation of the Highland glens—of the many houses which were to be seen in ruins and without inhabitants. But the history of these ruined places was not such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman supposed; and the cases referred to, he (Mr. Marjoribanks) was prepared to argue, were special ones. The Report of the Commissioners did not support the gloomy view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and he thought it would be far better for the House to abide by the Report of the Commission as to the question of deer forests, rather than enter into sentimental denunciations. As to the question of harbours, he would express the hope that the Government would be cautious before they entered on any very great system of giving grants for the construction of harbours or piers on the Western Coast of Scotland. He was inclined to think that grants of public money were only justified in cases where some distinct life-saving purpose was to be effected. It was very doubtful whether, for the purpose of developing any trade or fishery, the Government should make free grants. There might be cases when it was very proper to grant loans at low rates of interest; but he doubted whether they were cases where free grants should be made.

said, that after the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department he did not wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division. He would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

said, he had not derived as much satisfaction from, the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary as some hon. Members seemed to have done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had replied with great sympathy, but had not told them that he hoped to do anything, nor could he say that other Departments of the State would do anything. It might not yet be possible to settle an exact plan; but the Government should have informed the House that they intended to take action whether they agreed with the Report of the Commissioners or not. The Report of the Commissioners showed a state of things which imperatively demanded that action should be taken by the Government. Every page of the Report teemed with evidence to the effect that there had been extreme depopulation in many parts of the Highlands, and overcrowding in others.