asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the Trust of the River Weaver, the largest inland navigation in the Kingdom, is a self-elected body; that its income is derived almost entirely from the salt trade; that its surplus funds have for more than 160 years been used to relieve the county rate; that the salt trade has in this way, and during that time, been taxed to the extent of more than £2,000,000 sterling; that the salt trade is, and has long been, in a deplorably depressed condition; that the sources of salt production have of late years been rapidly developed, and bear no corresponding tax for the benefit of any Public Authority, whilst they have greatly diminished the demand for Cheshire salt; that the salt manufacturers of Cheshire have since 1866 been taxed, in common with other ratepayers of the county, under the Cattle Plague Act; that the cost to the county of this Act is, for instalment of loan and interest, £14,227 15s. per annum; that this loan will be paid off in 1896; that under a recent Act the Trustees of the River Weaver contribute £15,000 a-year to the County Fund; and that the constitution of the Weaver Trust has been repeatedly condemned by the Board of Trade, on the ground that it imposed a tax upon trade; and, whether he is prepared to recommend, for the management of the River Weaver, the constitution of a public Trust resembling the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and that the payment from the Trust to the County Fund should cease at the date of the last payment on account of the Cattle Plague Loan in 1896, or at an earlier date?

The history of the Weaver Trust is contained in a Report presented in 1872 by the Board of Trade on the Weaver Navigation Bill, then before Parliament. The Board of Trade have no power to alter the management of this or any other River in the Kingdom; and any proposal for a reconstitution of the Trust must come from those interested. Any such proposal would receive the best consideration of the Department.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether surveyors and assistant surveyors in the service of the Post Office in Ireland are allowed at the rate of 20s. and 15s. respectively per day for every day during which they are absent from their respective headquarters; whether, in addition, they are also allowed the cost of first-class locomotion from place to place; if it can be stated upon what grounds this per diem allow- ance has been fixed; whether surveyors and assistant surveyors are generally absent on an average of 10 months in the year from their headquarters; and, whether any check exists as to the number of occasions they shall visit, or the length of time they shall remain in any particular place, within their respective districts, if such be optional with themselves?

said: The allowances to surveyors and assistant surveyors when absent from their headquarters are as stated in the Question, having been so fixed in order to cover the cost of subsistence. These officers, when travelling by railway in the discharge of their official duties, travel first-class. From the very nature of their employment a certain discretion must be left to them as to occasion and duration of their visits to the offices under their control; but a close check is kept on their movements, and in their diaries, which are sent up for inspection at short intervals, they have to account for every moment of their time. I may add that upon the vigilance, and—if I may use such a word—the ubiquitousness, of the surveyors and their assistants, the well-working of the Post Office largely depends; and the policy of the Department has been to keep them at their headquarters, not, as the hon. Member would seem to suppose, as much, but as little, as possible.

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, If the attention of the Board has been directed to the evidence reported to have been given at Wandsworth Police Court, on the 25th ultimo, by Mr. Humphreys, described as one of the Inspectors under the Metropolitan Board, in a case in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals prosecuted, that it was not cruelty to work a horse with chronic navicular disease in a four-wheeled cab, and to his statement, when the learned magistrate took a contrary view and convicted the prisoner, that half the cab horses in London were in that condition, what duties Mr. Humphreys is employed by the Board to discharge; and, on what authority he made the allegation in question?

, in reply, said, that Mr. Humphreys was one of the Veterinary Inspectors appointed by the Metropolitan Board under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, his duties being to report on all cases of diseased animals which were brought under his notice. All the Inspectors appointed under the Act were properly qualified veterinary surgeons, who also carried on business on their own account. Mr. Humphreys appeared at the Wandsworth Police Court as a witness on behalf of a cab-owner, whose horses were under his professional care, and gave evidence, not as representing the Board, but in his individual capacity as a veterinary surgeon. In justice to Mr. Humphreys, it must be stated that he denied having made the direct statement as reported.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether breaches of the Truck Acts in the Bristol district have been recently reported to the Local Inspector of Factories; and, whether any, and what, proceedings have been taken by the Inspector to enforce the law?

Yes, Sir; the fact is as stated. The Local Inspector has been instructed to make a full investigation, and, if possible, to obtain statements, which could be verified on oath, in the cases which have been reported to him.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the Catholic population of Wicklow County stands to the Protestant in the relation of four to one; whether it is true, as reported in the papers, that in the trial of prisoners on capital charges at the late Assizes in Wicklow the juries were exclusively Protestant, and can he say how this arose; whether it is the fact that Wicklow County is exceptionally free from crime; and, whether in future the practice of bringing criminals from other counties for trial in Wicklow will be discontinued?

The reply to the first and third paragraphs of the Question is in the affirmative. I am afraid I have nothing to add to my previous answer on the subject of paragraph 2. With regard to the last paragraph, the Attorney General for Ireland will, of course, continue to exercise the discretion vested in him by Statute.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the result of these trials has not been that two men have gone to the scaffold protesting their innocence, and leaving written declarations of their innocence behind them, these men having been removed from the County Kerry to be tried by this jury so constituted in the County Wicklow?

I do not quite apprehend the object of the hon. Member's Question. Perhaps he will put it on the Notice Paper. I do not know whether the Question implies that the fact that these men did not confess their guilt had any connection whatever with the removal of their trial.

May I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen a report of the proceedings at the Coroner's inquest in this case, at which the High Sheriff, the Deputy Sheriff, and the Governor of the gaol gave testimony to these men's protestations of innocence?

No; I have not read that.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the War Office to utilise the services of Army Medical Officers on the retired list; whether such officers, when re-employed, will receive the same pay, allowances, and military status as other officers of their rank and standing; and, whether their additional service will count for increased pension when compulsorily retired by age, or what advantages will they derive?

Retired medical officers will be employed from time to time as their services become necessary. When so re-employed their remuneration is limited by the Royal Warrant to the sum of £150 a-year beyond their retired pay, and their service does not count towards increase of retired pay. I may add that this re-employment during peace is entirely at the option of the retired officers. If a retired officer be called out for service in a time of national emergency, the conditions of employment would be altogether different.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state what is the cause of the delay in laying the Return of Lunatic Asylums, ordered on the 19th of August last, upon the Table.

This Return is now almost completed, and will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days. The Return is a heavy one, and such delay as there has been is inseparable from the labour involved.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the number of men engaged on fire duty at the Devonport Dockyard is 24, although only 10 men are on duty at one and the same time; whether these men are on the same footing as regards accommodation, hours of duty, and pay, as the men employed on the same duty in other Dockyards; and, if not, why not; whether, although the sum of £170 was some time since granted for the purpose of improved sleeping accommodation for the men, no alteration has been made for several years past; whether the order for reducing the men's pay stated that the reduced pay was to commence "when the additional accommodation is complete;" whether their pay was, in fact, reduced by order of the Admiral Superintendent, from the date of the Order in February last; whether, under these circumstances, the men are entitled to their former rate of pay until the additional accommodation is ready for them; whether he is aware that the extra weekly duty, for which the men are now paid only 7s., amounts to 120 hours per week (57 by day and 63 by night), during which time they are confined within the gates, with no place except one sleeping room to cook and eat their meals in, with no opportunity of attending a place of worship or enjoying any recreation, and that they can only communicate during that time with their wives and families in the presence of the policeman on duty at the gates; and, whether, under all the above circumstances, he will consider the possibility of granting an increase of pay to these men?

I do not propose answering in detail the eight Questions now put, as I answered nine similar Questions last week. I will confine myself to saying that the circumstances of the case have been thoroughly gone into; and that I am satisfied that the pay given is fair and equitable, and that all consideration is paid to the convenience of the men.

I beg to state that I am not at all satisfied with the answer of the noble Lord. I shall take the liberty of repeating the Question; and if I do not get an answer to-day I shall repeat it every day till I do.

gave Notice that he would repeat the Question on the following day and every day till he could get an answer.

Order, order!

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, What has been the result of the special inducements to retire offered to the officers in the blocked years of the Indian Telegraph Service; whether such inducements have had the desired effect; and, if, not, what is the cause of failure; whether it is the fact that promotions in the Telegraph Service are now made only twice a-year; whether the effect of this arrangement is to inflict a loss of, perhaps, several months' pay and promotion in the case of those who are moved up into vacancies in the intervals between the biennial promotion days; and, whether such a Rule is in force in any other branch of the Public Service?

The first period at which retirement might have taken place was March 31. No intimation as to the result has yet been received. Permanent promotions are now only made twice a-year, but acting promotions are made as vacancies occur. The full pay of the higher rank is not attained until the permanent appointment is made. Meantime, an acting allowance is received. No such Rule is in force in other Departments of the Public Service.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the claim for 11 lacks of rupees submitted to the Nizam's Government by Sir Horace Rumbold, British Minister at the Hague, and which has been settled by the payment to him of three lacks, is the same claim as that referred to in the following extract from the Hyderabad Report for 1294, Fasli (1884–5):—

"The usurious interest charged by the houses of Rumbold, Palmer, and Co., and Poorunmull and others is well known, and there is little doubt that all such creditors of the State in the old days were paid over and over again. A claim was put forward some years ago by the heirs of Sir William Rumbold, and revived from time to time, but on its last appearance it was rejected under the advice of the Government of India;

I must refer the hon. Member to my answer to his Question on April 9, when I stated that the Secretary of State had no official information on this subject. Both the Secretary of State and the Viceroy expressly refused to interfere in the matter of this claim.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen a statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at a meeting of the National League on the 24th ultimo, that on the occasion of a visit recently paid by him to the town of Newtownards for the purpose of addressing a meeting, threats were used by the agents of the landlord and the local police officer to deter people from allowing him to speak on their premises, and accusing the Lord Lieutenant of personally using the machinery and the police of the county to terrify his own tenants on that occasion; whether there are any grounds for this statement and accusation; whether the meeting in question was, in fact, held; and, whether he can give the House any particulars concerning it?

My attention has been called to the newspaper reports of the statement and accusation attributed to the hon. Member for East Mayo. The local constabulary authorities report that there was no ground whatever for making either one or the other; there was no interference by any landlord or his agent in the matter, neither did the police attempt to prevent the meeting, nor, indeed, were they aware of the intention to hold it until the very last moment. It appears that the hon. Member referred to, accompanied by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) and another person, arrived at Newtownards at about 7 o'clock in the evening. The proprietress of the hotel refused to allow them to hold a meeting at her premises. They then proceeded to a draper's yard, and held what the police describe as a "hole and corner meeting." The meeting was very small, consisting of about 45 or 50 persons, and only about one-half of these had any connection with land, the remainder being townspeople.

asked, whether any policeman had gone to the person who owned the hotel before the use of the premises for the holding of a meeting was refused; and, whether any policeman had attended in the hotel yard?

said, he had not mentioned the hotel yard. He had said the meeting was held in a draper's yard.

said, he referred only to the hotel yard.

replied that he did not know.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade have received information to the effect that no lime juice was served out to the crew of the British barque Killeena for 42 days, while on a passage from Buenos Ayres to Talcahuano, in the early part of last year; and, if so, why proceedings were not taken against the master?

I have received information that no lime juice was served out on the voyage referred to. The Statute governing the serving out of lime juice applies to vessels navigating between the United Kingdom and any port out of the same. The Killeena, on the occasion referred to, was not engaged on such a voyage; therefore, no offence under statute was committed. I may add that no case of scurvy has been reported as having occurred during that voyage.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received official notification of the confirmation by Congress of the appointment of General Crespo as President of the United States of Venezuela; and, whether overtures have been made by the new President to the Government with a view to the resumption of diplomatic relations, enabling negotiations to be re-opened with regard to the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela?

Her Majesty's Government have not received any notification of the appointment of a new President of Venezuela, and no overtures have been made by him for the resumption of diplomatic relations.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that at Pill, in North Somerset, certain persons living within 20 minutes' walk of the village post office are refused delivery of letters at their houses except on three days in each week; whether three mails reach Pill daily; and, whether, in view of the fact that many subjects of Her Majesty have their letters delivered to them as often as 13 times a-day, he will cause a delivery to be made at least once a-day to the persons mentioned above?

said: My hon. Friend, no doubt, refers to a matter respecting which he has already been in communication with the Department—namely, the question of increasing the frequency of the delivery afforded at Chapel Pill Farm from three to six days a week. The service three days a-week was offered to the occupant of the farm, and accepted by him as being all that the circumstances would warrant; and I am afraid that a further outlay would not be justified at present.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will present to Parliament maps of the counties of York, Lancaster, Stafford, Warwick, and Monmouth, showing the distribution of urban and rural districts respectively, and their populations within the boundaries of those counties as they will stand for the first election to the County Councils?

I think that if any such maps are presented they should be furnished for all the counties of England and Wales. The expense of supplying these maps would obviously be considerable; and I should hardly feel justified in incurring it, unless I felt that there was a general desire on the part of the Members to obtain these maps. If I have reason to believe that such a general desire is felt, I shall be willing to consider the question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Who is the head permanent official responsible for submitting to the Secretary of State for War the number of men of whom in his responsible opinion the British Army should in the coming financial year consist; whether such official did submit such a formal opinion before the present Estimates were finally prepared; and, whether such opinion can be made public; and, if not, whether a distinct and authoritative record of such opinion is annually preserved at the War Office, as also a formal record of the fact whether such opinion was overruled or approved by the Secretary of State, in such manner as to afford conclusive evidence of the official to whom responsibility would attach in case the actual number should prove inadequate to the requirements of the country?

No change has been made in this matter by the recent re-organization. The establishment of the Army for each financial year is submitted by the Commander-in-Chief to the Secretary of State. It is customary for the Commander-in-Chief to submit personally in the autumn of each year his views as to the establishment for the coming year, and subsequently the details are worked out and presented to the Secretary of State. No permanent Civil official has any responsibility whatever in this submission. As soon as this establishment has been submitted to the Secretary of State, it is considered by him with such advice as he may think necessary, and generally in consultation with his military advisers. But I wish to say most emphatically that for the action taken upon the establishment so submitted by the Commander-in-Chief the Secretary of State is solely and absolutely responsible. The opinions which I have described were submitted to me in the usual way, and at the usual time this year; and I consequently accept full and entire responsibility for the Estimates presented to Parliament. Official Minutes prepared for the assistance of a Minister are confidential Papers, and have never yet been made public. I should certainly not desire to commence that practice, and mainly on the ground that to do so would immediately minimize the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The official Papers show clearly what establishments were proposed to the Secretary of State upon the preparation of the Estimates.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in view of the Report of the Crofters' Commission that the causes which have prevented applications for enlargement of holdings under the Crofters' Holdings Act being lodged in any number are to be found in the Act itself, and particularly in Section 13, which fixes the scope of the words "available land," the Government intends to amend the Act so as to remove the restrictions imposed by the said section?

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that not a single holding has been enlarged since the Crofters' Act came into operation; and, whether, considering that the Royal Commission reported that the most pressing and the most important grievance of the crofters was inadequate holdings, and that the Crofters' Commission now reports that the clauses regarding increase of holdings are unworkable under present circumstances, the Government intend to introduce a measure to remedy the worst grievance that the crofters suffer from.

The Government do not intend to bring in a measure to amend the Crofters' Act.

asked for an answer to the former part of his Question.

I answer in the affirmative.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will be good enough to inform the House what are the terms and conditions under which the Government propose to advance £10,000 for the emigration of crofters, both as regards the advances, the security, and the repayment; whether there are any Papers on the subject which he can include in the Return, recently ordered on the subject of colonization; whether any, and what, Report has been obtained upon the suitability of the land on which it is proposed to settle them; where the land is; and what part of the work and expense of the matter will be performed by the Canadian Government?

said, he understood that the Lord Advocate would answer this Question.

The Government are prepared to advance up to £10,000 at once on further sums being raised by private subscription. The amount thus obtained will be administered by a Board representing the Imperial Government, the Canadian Government, the subscribers, and the principal Canadian Land Companies. The Board will advance £120 to crofters' families emigrating, repayable in 12 years in eight equal annual instalments of £20 17s. 8d., commencing in the fifth year, in full of principal and interest. The advance will be secured by a mortgage on the 160 acres to be granted to each family, and by a lien on their chattels. There are Papers which can be given, but it will not be convenient to give them in the Return already ordered. Suitable land will be selected by the Board. The Dominion Government will give free grants, and the settlers will have the advantage of the experience and co-operation of the Dominion Government land agents.

asked, whether it was in contemplation to exempt emigrants going to other parts of our Colonies than Canada; and whether the crofters would be compelled to go against their will?

As regards the latter part of the Question, it is unnecessary to answer the hon. Member. As regards the first part, I will be obliged by him giving Notice of it.

said, they had been so compelled before.

asked, whether the powers described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the transaction on the part of the Government, would be exercised under any existing statute, or whether legislation would be necessary?

I do not think that any legislation will be necessary at present; but an Estimate, of course, will have to be laid before the House.

asked, whether the benefits of the emigration scheme would be entirely confined to crofters?

asked for Notice of the Question.

asked, to what part of Canada it was intended that the emigration should take place?

asked for Notice of this Question also.

asked, in reference to the voting of money by this House, whether the Government could hold a lien over the chattels of the emigrants in Canada without further statutory powers?

said, there would be legislation in Canada upon the subject.

asked, whether the Government expected that a sum of £120 would be sufficient to take the emigrants out, build a house, and—

Order, order!

asked, whether this was conditional on private subscriptions being raised?

I must ask hon. Members to be so good as to wait until the statement is made which will accompany the Vote on which the Government will ask for the power to make those advances. It is impossible for us to give any further information at present.

asked, Whether the details of the scheme of emigration for crofters would be laid before the House in good time for consideration before the Vote on the subject was taken?

, in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay a statement on the Table, so that the House would have a full opportunity of discussing the subject before the Vote was taken?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will now state what steps he proposes to take with reference to the rubbish thrown on to the fishing grounds off the Essex Coast?

The Report is now in the hands of the printers; and as soon as it is printed the subject will receive my careful consideration.

asked The First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the owners of the smack Vesta, of Burnham, run down by one of Her Majesty's ships off the Nore, will receive compensation?

The only collision known of in this locality was between the dredger Alert and one of Her Majesty's ships, and it occurred on the 27th ultimo. The case is under consideration.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether any Departmental or other Official Inquiry has been made into the epidemic of small pox in Sheffield; if so, what has been the nature of that inquiry, and, particularly, whether public notice has been given that anyone who had evidence to give would be heard; whether the Report of such inquiry has been received, or when it is likely to be completed; and, whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House?

An exhaustive inquiry into the circum- stances of the epidemic of small pox at Sheffield by one of the Board's Medical Inspectors is still in progress. The object of the inquiry has been to ascertain the conditions under which the epidemic arose and spread, and especially how far vaccination, and want of vaccination, have been concerned with the prevalence of the disease. No formal inquiry for the taking of evidence has been held; but at the Inspector's instance a systematic inquiry by the Local Authorities has been made from house to house, and the Inspector has been continuously in Sheffield obtaining information on the subject. A provisional Report has been submitted. The analysis of the voluminous Returns prepared locally is now being proceeded with; and as soon as this is completed the final Report will be at once prepared and laid on the Table of the House.

asked, whether the epidemic had been so far suppressed that the town could be said to be clear of small pox?

said, that was so.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can give to the House an approximate estimate of the number of electors under the County Government Bill whose rates will be paid by their landlords; and, whether, in view of the importance of carrying out the principle that direct taxation should accompany direct representation in the administration of the rates, he will consider the expediency of limiting the operation of the compounding Acts to those localities where they are already in force, and to rents which are payable weekly or monthly?

I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the occupiers who are usually known as compound householders. I have no information as to the number of such occupiers in England and Wales; and I cannot, therefore, give to the House any approximate estimate of the number of compound householders who will be entitled to vote in elections under the Local Government Bill. There is no intention on the part of the Government, in connection with the Bill, to propose any alteration in the existing compounding Acts.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the proposed alterations in the control of the County Police Establishments, he will ask the County Chief Constables to report their opinions on the relative advantages of the following methods of administration—namely, whether such control would be best entrusted to the Magistrates as nominees of the Crown; or to a Joint Committee of Magistrates and Elected Councillors; or to a Council of popularly elected Members; or to the Home Office; having special regard to the efficiency of the force, to economy of management, and to the suppression of crime; and, whether he will print such reports as a Parliamentary Paper?

The course suggested by my hon. Friend is not one which the Government deem it necessary or desirable to adopt.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the wire gun which burst at proof in Woolwich Arsenal last week was designed or manufactured in the Government Establishments?

No, Sir. The wire gun in question was neither designed nor manufactured in a Government establishment. It was designed as an experiment by Mr. Longridge, the inventor, who submitted it for trial at the Royal Arsenal; and it was manufactured for him by a private firm.

asked the Secretary of State for War, When his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief made his demand for 11,000 men to be added to the Army; and, what action was taken upon it by him?

This matter was made perfectly plain in the evidence given by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief before the Select Committee. No demand whatever for an addition of 11,000 men to the Army has ever been submitted to me.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the inquests held on the 5th of April and the 23rd of April on two babies who died from being vaccinated when six days and five days old respectively; whether, in the first case, the child was born in the Greenwich Union Infirmary, and was vaccinated in five places against the wish of its mother; whether the Coroner said there had been great want of discretion on someone's part; whether the jury desired the Coroner to make representations to the authorities, with a view to the prevention of similar cases in future; whether, in the second case, the child was born at Queen Charlotte's Hospital, and whether it is accurate, as stated at the inquest, that it is the common practice there to vaccinate babies within five days of their birth; whether, in this case, the mother was not consulted as to the time of the operation; whether the Coroner was accurate in stating—

"That by the sanction of the Local Government Board it is the constant practice in workhouse infirmaries to vaccinate infants three or four days old;"

My attention has been drawn to the two inquests referred to by the hon. Member. As regards the case of the child born in the Greenwich Infirmary, the verdict of the jury at the Coroner's inquest was not that the child died from being vaccinated when six days old, as stated in the Question, but from being accidentally suffocated while at the mother's breast. The child was vaccinated in five places, and there was no statement at the inquest that the mother objected to this vaccination. The child left the infirmary 13 days after the vaccination; and, according to the statement of the medical officer of the Guardians, was perfectly healthy at the time of the vaccination and at the time of leaving the infirmary. A postmortem examination, of which evidence was given at the inquest, showed, however, that the child had one lung in a state of collapse, probably from the time of birth, and had other congenital malformations; and the jury, having this evidence before them, added to their verdict a rider to the effect that the child was, in their opinion, in an exceptionally delicate state of health, and that its vaccination was much to be regretted. As I have already stated, however, the cause of death was accidental suffocation. As regards the case of the child born at Queen Charlotte's Hospital, it was vaccinated when five days old, as is the practice in that Hospital, unless the parent objects. In this case the mother was aware of the rule, and did not object. The child, when discharged from the Hospital, was certified by the physician to be in good health. The child died when just over a month old. The Coroner states that death was not due to the vaccination, but to injury to the vaccination sores, followed by inflammation, which was probably of an erysipelatous character. It is to be borne in mind that if children born in a workhouse are not vaccinated before their discharge, they commonly escape vaccination altogether; and the Local Government Board are advised that there is no medical reason against such early vaccination in the case of healthy children. The Vaccination Act of 1867 requires vaccination within three months after birth.

asked the President of the Local Go- vernment Board, If his attention has been called to the judgment yesterday in the Court of Queen's Bench in respect of the appeal of a publican from the refusal of the Cumberland magistrates to renew his licence for reasons other than offences against the law; and, if in consequence, he intends to press the Compensation Clauses of the Local Government Bill?

My attention has been called to the decision given by two of the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division. My hon. Friend is, of course, aware that the judgment was not given by a final Court of Appeal. I may say, however, that the proposals in connection with the Compensation Clauses of the Local Government Bill are based upon what we consider are the equitable claims of those who now possess licences; and we do not, therefore, propose to withdraw them from the consideration of the House in consequence of the decision referred to.

On this question, might I ask the Solicitor General if he is prepared, in view of this decision, to make any modification of his statement of the law on the subject?

No, Sir; I am not.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If Succession or Legacy Duty has ever been paid by any person who has succeeded to the business of Licensed Victualler, carried on in premises not belonging to the deceased or his successor, when the licence has been renewed to the successor?

Where a person succeeds to the business of a Licensed Victualler, carried on in premises not belonging to the deceased or his successor—that is, on leasehold premises—Probate Duty, and either Legacy or Succession Duty, is paid on the entire value of the deceased's interest in the lease and business taken as a whole. It is always assumed that the licence has been, or will be, renewed to the successor, unless the contrary proves to be the case.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that Circulars have been issued by a Colonel Graham, inviting young men to go out to Methuen's Settlement, Bechuanaland; whether Methuen's Settlement is under Imperial protection; and, whether Colonel Graham's proposals have been made with the knowledge and sanction of the Government?

said: Her Majesty's Government are aware of the fact that such Circulars have been issued. The district in question is part of the British Possession of Bechuanaland. Colonel Graham's proposals were not made with the previous knowledge, and have not received the sanction, of Her Majesty's Government. All persons who have applied to the Colonial Office on the subject have received information to the following effect:—Nothing but a grant of the unoccupied land will be given by the Colonial Government; and the supply of the other things mentioned in the paragraph which has appeared in the Press—such as a house, 100 head of sheep, 25 head of cattle, two horses, arms, and all necessary agricultural implements—is promised to the emigrants by the promoters of the scheme, to whom you should apply for information, and not, as has been inferred, by Her Majesty's Government. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is not in a position to express any opinion as to the fertility of the land, or the prospects of those who may settle upon it.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, How the modification of the Cart Tax, which he has announced, will effect his previous Estimate of £63,500 as the produce of the impost in the Metropolis?

I anticipate that it will effect a reduction of £17,000 in my previous Estimate.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the provisions of Clause 21 (3) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill are intended to apply to Building Societies, such Societies having been decided, by the Special Commissioners in 1877, to be exempt from payment of tax under Shedule D?

A. Building Society, if conducting its ordinary business, would not be brought within the operation of Clause 21 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. There is no special exemption from Income Tax in favour of Building Societies generally. The decision of the Special Commissioners to which the hon. Member refers was pronounced upon a particular case, and was to the effect that the particular Society appealing to them had no funds chargeable with Income Tax.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Captain Lestrange was recently superseded in H.M.S. Surprise; and, if so, can he state for what reason; whether he had previously been missing from his ship, and why was he so missing; and, is he the same officer who has since been appointed Commander of H.M.S. Boadicea; and, if so, for what reasons was he so appointed?

Commander Lestrange was superseded in July last in consequence of medical certificates reporting him temporarily incapacitated from service by illness. While at Marseilles he left his ship for a few days to visit Paris, and did not return. On inquiry, it was ascertained from medical reports that he was seriously ill, suffering from cerebral congestion, which was attributed to sun- stroke. The weight which is invariably attached to medical opinions in cases of this sort resulted in Commander Lestrange's supersession from his ship without trial by court-martial, which must otherwise have been ordered. He was reported in October last to be again fit for service. It is customary, when the Service admits of it, to allow captains to nominate their seconds in command, and the captain of the Boadicea applied for this officer.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he sees any objection to the publication of any information in the possession of the Government referring to the recent operations of slave dealers in the Soudan and Zanzibar, and particularly Papers relating to the mutilation of children and the mortality consequent upon the same?

Her Majesty's Government are not in possession of any recent information of slave trading in the Soudan or in Zanzibar, or of the mutilation of children. A certain increase of the Slave Trade is reported from the East Coast of Africa. The annual Blue Book on the Slave Trade will shortly be presented, and will contain all the official information that has reached us on the subject.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can state approximately the amount of money spent by the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue Commissioners in the discovery and working of gold in Wales?

said: I have inquired what information can be given by the Office of Woods on this point. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his Question in a few days.

asked the President of the Local Go- vernment Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement that prices are now being offered for public-houses vastly above what they could have fetched in the market a short time since; and, whether he will make inquiry in several parts of the country as to the alleged rise in value of public-houses since the announcement of the Compensation Clauses of the Local Government Bill?

My attention has not been drawn to the statement that prices are now being offered for public-houses vastly above what they would have fetched in the market a short time since. Indeed, I am told that it is not the case that it is so. I have no means of obtaining the information, however, as to the terms on which properties of this character change hands.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to prevent jobbery taking place in this matter similar to that which took place in regard to the Irish Church Act?

I do not propose to take any other steps than those I have already taken.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any objection to laying upon the Table of the House any Papers and Despatches relating to the Italian Expedition to Abyssinia, and especially the Despatches about Mr. Portal's Mission to the Abyssinian King, which are referred to in the Italian Green Book just issued.

There will be no objection to presenting Papers on the subject, if my hon. Friend will move for them.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the two Resolutions passed by the Mile End Old Town Board of Guardians and Vestry, in the Tower Hamlets, protesting against the clauses of the Local Government Bill which provide for the payment of compensation to publicans whose houses may be closed; and, whether he will take these expressions of opinion into his consideration before the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill are reached in Committee? He wished to be allowed to state that the reason he had put the Question was that these two Boards represented the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman.

They used to do so; they do not now. Any expressions of opinion in reference to the Local Government Bill which I receive are considered by me. The hon. Member probably will not contend that the feeling expressed on the part of a Board of Guardians of any particular parish has any special weight in connection with a question such as that of the compensation proposed in the Local Government Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, considering the inconvenience, labour, cost, and annoyance caused to common jurors owing to the distances they have to travel, the interference with their occupation, and otherwise, he will entertain the advisability of affording some substantial remuneration to common jurors; and if he can inform the House on what ground the distinction now exists as between common jurors and special jurors with regard to remuneration, especially as the special juror is in a better position to meet the difficulties of the position?

said: I am well aware that common jurors have to incur considerable expense in travelling, and in other ways. At the same time, it is a very difficult question whether it is or is not desirable to give them substantial remuneration. The distinction between common jurors and special jurors rests upon Statute Law. I am not prepared to say that I will introduce a measure dealing with this question; but I recognize that it will have to be considered in the event of any large alteration of the existing law.

asked, Whether the allowances given to common jurors did not vary enormously in different parts of the country?

I am not aware that that is the case. My impression is that common jurors always receive about the same figure.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government is now prepared to assent to the nomination of a Select Committee to consider and report upon the subject of the appointment of an Official or Public Trustee; and, whether the Government will consent to the Second Reading pro formâ of the Bills introduced upon the same subject by the Members for the Central Division of the Borough of Sheffield and the Western Division of Monmouthshire.

The Government have it in contemplation to bring in a Bill on the subject of Official Trustees; and the best plan will be to consider, when that Bill is introduced, whether it should be referred to a Select Committee or not.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a Question of which he had given private Notice, Whether he was aware that the police, in Marylebone, had distributed voting papers from house to house for the election taking place that day, together with a paper printed in large type with the words "Vote, No, and distinctly defeat and settle the question." Was this part of the duties allotted the police by the Chief Commissioner?

, in reply, said, that he knew nothing of the facts put forward by the hon. Member. The hon. Member's Notice had only been placed in his hands as he entered the House. He, therefore, had had no time for inquiry. He had no knowledge of the imposition on the police of any such duty as the hon. Member had described.

said, I cannot tell to-day when the Employers' Liability Bill will be taken; I am afraid it cannot be this week. The House is aware that there are two Bills before it which must be passed before the Whitsuntide Recess. They are the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill and the Bill for the registration of electors under the Local Government scheme. The Government propose to ask the House to consider these Bills on Thursday, so as to make their success absolutely certain. I am sure the House will assist us in forwarding Public Business that cannot possibly wait. The Employers' Liability Bill will not be taken on Thursday; but I hope to be able to ask the House to take the second reading before Whitsuntide. In reply to Mr. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby),

said, he hoped to be able to take the second reading of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill before the Whitsuntide Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention had been called to the dispute and consequent strike in connection with one of the large collieries in the Rhondda Valley, in consequence of the employers refusing to supply them with suitable timber without a reduction of wages to meet the expenses thereof; and, whether such conduct was in accordance with the provisions of the Coal Mines, &c., Regulation Act?

I cannot give any authoritative opinion on the effect of the statute; but as I read the Act, the owner is bound not to allow the timbering of working places to be done by the workmen unless timber is provided at the places named in the Act; but the Act leaves the owners and workmen free to settle by agreement between themselves on what terms, as to wages and otherwise, the timber shall be conveyed to those places.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question with reference to an answer he gave on Friday. It refers to the sentence passed on Mr. Blane, M.P. The Chief Secretary said it was originally four months with hard labour, but was extended to six months without hard labour. I have been informed that there is some mistake in this matter, and that hard labour was not included in the first sentence of four months.

As the hon. Baronet is, perhaps, aware, a Question was asked me yesterday on this subject by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

No. I was not aware.

And I then explained to the House that I was quoting from memory, and, as it turns out, accurately quoting, a Report which I happened to read that morning from the Sessional Crown Solicitor. I confess that even the further inquiry I have made on the subject has not entirely cleared up what ought to be a comparatively easy point to make clear; but what is undoubted is, that the case was argued before the County Court Judge by both sides as if the sentence had been a sentence of hard labour. There is doubt about that. Both the appellant's counsel and counsel for the prosecution assumed, on the hearing of the appeal, that the sentence of the Resident Magistrates was with hard labour.

But was it so, without assuming?

That is just the question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down on the Paper? They ought to have known, I should think.

Cannot we have the sentence itself? It is, of course, recorded.

Of course, there is no difficulty in the case, if the House will give me time to get the facts of the case. At present there seems to be some difficulty, which I cannot reconcile, between the facts I have stated to the House and other facts.

rose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the imminent danger to law and order in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in consequence of the complete breakdown of the Crofters' Act as a remedy for the Crofters' grievances, and the pressing necessity for remedial legislation.

called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

said, he regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, owing to the manner in which he had answered the Questions put to him earlier in the evening, in reference to the Amendment of the Crofters' Act, had compelled him (Dr. Clark) to bring the matter before the House in the present manner. Hon. Members had now before them the Report of the Crofters' Commission, and it would be seen that one of the Schedules contained in that Report had not been filled up. There had not yet been one case of a single holding having been enlarged since the Crofters' Act came into operation. The right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had asked the Lord Advocate to inquire of the Crofters' Commission, whether this most important alteration of the provisions of the Crofters' Act had not been carried into effect. The Report of the Crofters Commission was laid before Parliament last week, and it would appear that although there had been some 300 or 400 applications for enlargements of holdings, there had not been an increase in a single case. The Commissioners said that, under the provisions of the Act, it was quite impossible for them to increase the holdings. He (Dr. Clark) maintained that that was a very serious matter, because the clause in reference to the increase of holdings was one of the clauses which was limited in its operation to a period of five years. Two years had already elapsed, and there had not been a single case of an increase of holding. That was the primary grievance of the Crofters; but there was a second grievance—namely, that of rack-renting. He thought the evidence given before the Commission established beyond the possibility of doubt that there was rack-renting in Scotland as well as in Ireland; but under the provisions of the Scotch Crofters' Act, crofters, no matter how rack-rented, who held holdings of less than £20 or £30 a-year under leases, were excluded from the benefits of the Act, although the Irish Land Act gave to all Irish leaseholders the benefits of that Act, and even if they held 99 years' leases. It was obvious that small crofters living in the crofter parishes most required this protection. The leaseholders were of two classes—first, those who were compelled to accept leases under a threat of eviction; and, secondly, those who were glad to accept leases in order to be protected in their holdings; but the class which required most protection was left altogether unprotected. Upon a large estate in his own county, 116 crofters had had a reduction of rent made by the Commission amounting to more than 50 per cent, and about 70 per cent had been taken off their arrears, and yet he found, from the newspapers of Friday last, that by the decision which had just been given by the Commission in the case of a large estate where the reduction of rent averaged 77 per cent, and the reduction of arrears about 83 per cent, the very class of men who required this protection were actually left entirely unprotected. In some cases, the rent had been reduced 50, 60, and even 80 per cent; whereas their neighbours who held under leases, although their holdings were in the same locality, were compelled to pay rack-rents, and were unable to obtain the benefits of the Act. That, however, although a great grievance, was not of so much importance as the question of the increased holdings. He frankly admitted that in the case of nine-tenths of the crofters, if they were to get their present holdings free, and owned the freehold of them, their condition would not be much improved. The one difficulty and the real pressing question in the Highlands was the increase of holdings, and he would refer the House to the facts of the case as established by the Royal Commission. It must be remembered that that Commission was composed of six Gentlemen, four of whom were landlords, the fifth the son of a landlord, and the sixth, a Professor of Gaelic, so that a Commission so constituted could not be supposed to have any especial leaning towards the grievances of the Highland crofters. The Report of the Commission was a most satisfactory one in every respect, and if the Government would only carry out the recommendations which the Commissioners had made, the Crofters would be satisfied and law and order would be observed. The Commissioners said—

"The principal matter of dissatisfaction urged upon our notice in almost every instance was the restriction of the area of the holding. The fact was notorious, and was a matter of common observation."

said, he wished to say a word or two in support of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). The whole case, as he understood it, might be presented in a very few words indeed. He was afraid that his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate must admit that he brought this matter upon himself. He might have prevented it from being moved, if he had given a less curt reply to the Questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland). What had been the history of this question during the last Session of Parliament? When the House met at the beginning of the year, an Amendment was moved to the Address with regard to the disturbances in Lewis. A discussion took place in the House upon that Amendment, and speeches were made both by the Lord Advocate and by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said, and he thought his hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow also said, that the powers of the Crofters' Commission as they at present existed were quite inadequate to deal with the great troubles that existed in Lewis. The difficulty in Lewis had reference to the grievance felt there in regard to the restricted area occupied by crofter holdings. The Chief Secretary for Ireland laid great stress on the question of over-population, and he said that the whole difficulty arose from the increase of population. The right hon. Gentleman did not, however, take into consideration that, so far as the population of Lewis was concerned, the crofters had not only increased, but they had had to live and subsist on a much smaller area of land than the population had to subsist on 30 or 40 years ago. The general conclusion come to by the House, after the discussion on the Amendment to the Address, was that, apart from the question of emigration and any powers that might be given to the Commission, such powers as that Body now possessed were quite inadequate to deal with the difficulty which had arisen in Lewis. Very naturally a question was asked as to what had become of the powers given to the Commissioners under the Crofters' Act for the extension of holdings. That subject was raised then, and also on a subsequent occasion. Eventually, a Question was put by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), as to whether the Government would agree to consult the Crofter Commission, and get a Report from them in regard to the causes which had rendered the provision for the extension of holdings comparatively inoperative. The Government assented to that request, and called on the Crofters' Commission to make a Report. They had done so, and it was issued to the House on Friday last. It was, therefore, only to be expected that his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and his hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland, representing as they did large Crofter constituencies, should put to-day the questions which appeared on the Paper in their names. He must say that those Questions had met with a very scant reply from the Lord Advocate, who said in very curt language, that the Government had no intention whatever of legislating on the crofter question during the present Session. That was all he said. He (Mr. Buchanan) did not wish to say a word that would wound the feelings of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he was bound to say, that on recent occasions Members from Scotland had had some cause to complain of the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the habit of treating the Questions which his Colleagues in Scotland brought under his consideration in that House. He trusted that what had taken place that night would have some slight effect upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that in future he would adopt something more of the suaviter in modo in the replies he gave to the Questions addressed to him. But, altogether apart from that, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman might say at the present moment, it was almost impossible that the Government could go on through the present Session without proposing some kind of extension of the powers of the Commission under the Act. The Crofters' Commission would very shortly have to be sent to Lewis, and it was admitted on both sides, that the powers they possessed were quite inadequate to deal with the state of things that existed there. Therefore, if they were sent there, it was quite impossible for them to give any satisfaction to the people who were now in a state of discontent. Was it impossible to give to the Crofters' Commission—an important public authority —some extended powers which would enable them to do away, to a certain extent, with some of the discontent? They had been told to-night that in a particular district where the greatest disturbance had arisen, and where the greatest distress prevailed—namely, the district of Park, within comparatively recent times, 30 or 40 years ago, there were crofter settlements all over the district, and when it was turned into a deer forest, the crofters were lifted out of their own district and put down on other parts of the island near the sea margin or elsewhere further north. Surely what had been done in recent times by private individuals in lifting crofter settlements from one part of the island and putting them down on another might be done by a public authority. Was it not possible for the Government to devise some means to give the Crofter Commission authority to do what had been done in the past by private individuals—namely, to lift up the crofter settlement from the wretched places in which they were now situated, and put them down on other parts of the Island of Lewis, where they might, under a system of fair rents be able to earn a decent livelihood and maintain themselves in something like comfort. He must earnestly impress upon the Government the extreme gravity and importance of the question. If the Government persisted in turning a deaf ear to all the representations that were made to them by those who represented the Highlands in connection with the specific defects of the Act, it would be a most shortsighted policy, and it would be impossible to look forward to another winter in the Highland districts without the risk of very serious disturbances arising. He would earnestly impress upon the Government the necessity of turning their serious attention to the matter in order to see whether, by some means or other, it was not possible to give to the Crofters' Commission extended powers for giving more land to the crofters.

Mr. Speaker, I think it will only be courteous that I should intervene at this early stage of the debate—a debate of which I do not complain, although I must inform the House that, having had no intimation whatever that any such debate was to take place, I am not in a position to give an elaborate answer to all that has been said. However, having discussed this matter very fully, and having stated my views upon it at an earlier part of the Session, and seeing no reason to depart from those views, I shall confine myself to making a few observations to show the position which the Government take up on this matter. As to the remark that I have brought this debate upon myself, I must say that I was not aware that I had been thought discourteous, and that it is extremely undesirable when one has a distinct answer to give to a Question to do otherwise than give it in distinct terms. I hope that giving a distinct negative to a Question will not be considered an act of discourtesy.

said, the complaint was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had answered several Questions together in the briefest manner, and not noticed the various points raised in them.

I quite understand that; but the Questions to which the hon. Gentleman refers consisted of references to certain facts which were perfectly well known—namely, statements made by a past Commissioner, and evidence given recently, and the pith and marrow of the Questions were, whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to take any action in the way of bringing in a measure to amend the Crofters' Act, this year. I answered that directly with no intention whatever of slurring over the Question. I assumed that the matters mentioned' in the Questions were correct, because they were simply reproductions of what had already been placed before hon. Members of this House. If, however, I have appeared in any way to be discourteous, it was certainly not my intention, and I hope the hon. Member who has complained will kindly look at it, as he himself said towards the end of his speech, as showing that the exception proves the rule. Her Majesty's Government have had the matter now under their consideration time after time, and the views of hon. Members as regards the probability or hope of a particular measure doing any good in the Island of Lewis have also been considered. As an illustration of the suggestions that we have to consider seriously from time to time, I will take the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for the West Division of Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) in the latter part of his speech to-day, when he asked why, as in former days, private individuals had succeeded in removing people from certain places in which they were living, to other places where they now live, could not Her Majesty's Government do the same thing now, for the purpose of transferring some of the people of Lewis to places in the Island where they would be better off? Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider that question with the greatest possible earnestness, if the evidence before them and before the House did not prove as conclusively as any evidence could, that no such scheme, whether carried out by the Government or by private individuals, could possibly have the effect which my hon. and learned Friend expects to derive from it. How can it have such an effect, when we know perfectly well that the population of Lewis has increased so enormously during the last 50 years, and has quadrupled within the last century, and when the population is several times as large as it was when those who lived in Lewis, and loved Lewis, and the people there more than 100 years ago declared that the Island could not possibly support the people upon it? We have always maintained—and we have not been met by hon. Members opposite on the matter—that the conclusion which Sir John M'Neill gives in his Report 30 or 40 years ago, was a true conclusion—namely, that the crofters were not to be expected to make their livelihood and support themselves and their families out of the product of their labours as agricultural subjects. That statement has been persistently evaded by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in all the discussions which have taken place on this question; and what we complain of, and with reason, is this, that parts of the Report are brought up again and again, and quoted against our views, while no notice is taken of this statement, which is apparently set aside for the empirical and hopeless remedies which are frequently proposed in this House. A Motion has now been made for the purpose of inducing this House to enter upon an alteration of the legislation which was passed in 1886—only two years ago—on behalf of the crofters in the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. I leave my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour), who had charge of that Bill after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) ceased to be connected with the Government of that year, to say whether the grounds upon which he then was satisfied that what was done in the Bill, was all that could and ought to be done, were sufficient and good grounds or not, and to say what are the grounds upon which he has changed his opinion, if he has done so. When he and those who acted with him have done so, it will be time for us to deal with the reasons they may give. If, on the other hand, they can give no such reasons—and I believe they cannot give any substantial or real reasons—then we shall not require to meet anybody on that matter. There is a much more important matter which was fully discussed in 1886, and which is really the crux of this question. It is quite true that there have been very few applications indeed for the enlargement of holdings upon the part of the crofters, and it is also true that of the small number of applications which have been made there have been many which have not been competent under the Act of Parliament, because those who made them were unable to get the required number of five to concur with them in the application. More than one application has been made to obtain land in an Island at a distance of seven miles by sea from the Island in which the crofter making the application lived. But the most remarkable fact of all—and specially remarkable in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark)—is that there has not been one single application for the purpose of taking land from a deer forest, although that is the easiest application to make, for it is an application which cannot possibly be refused on the ground of rental or on the ground of there being a tenant, but which can only be refused if the land would be taken under such circumstances as would destroy the deer forest as a letting property. We were told all along, and certainly in 1886, that it was most important that the deer forests should be included, because if only the crofters could get a considerable tract of the country, it would be most valuable to them, and add to their means of subsistence. Upon that statement it is a most remarkable commentary, which will require a great amount of ingenuity to explain, that there has not been a single application made by the crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for the purpose of taking land from a deer forest. We said in 1886, and we were laughed at by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite—no doubt in a good humoured way—that the land of the deer forests was unsuitable for the purpose, and would be of no benefit, and that land which could only support one sheep on four and a half acres was not the land out of which people without substantial means and unable to take large tracts could get any advantage to themselves. But only a few minutes ago the hon. Member for Caithness said, "Let the crofters of Lewis go back to the Park"—which is a deer forest—"and till it." Not one single application has been made for any such purpose. I am quite aware that the Park has been used as a means of agitation, but I am not aware that the crofters considered or suggested for one moment that by taking such parts of the Park as they could occupy profitably to themselves they would benefit themselves or their neighbours in any way whatever. My answer to my hon. Friend is this—let some crofters put an application before the Commission in Lewis for the purpose of getting part of the Park so as to cultivate it, and then it will be seen whether there is any ground for complaint at all. It is a most remarkable fact that while a great deal was said about including the deer forests so as to give the crofters an opportunity of taking slices out of them for the purposes of obtaining a livelihood, with the aid of their existing crofts, not one single application has been made for this purpose. But it is not there the difficulty lies. The difficulty is, as it was pointed out in 1886, that if people are to be supported out of land by the extension of holdings, giving them a larger quantity of land to cultivate and to carry pasture upon, then these people must be in a position to stock and to use the land. What occurred in 1886? I remember that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow referred in glowing terms to the great advantages which the Swiss peasantry had compared with the peasantry in the Island of Lewis. I took exception to what he then said, having myself had some experience of Switzerland as a young man. My opinion was that the Swiss peasantry had not so comfortable a life, that they made but little money, and that they did not even make a good subsistence. I then called attention to the question of additional land and to additional pasture, and what I then said I hold to now, knowing no reason to withdraw one word. I therefore cannot do better than road it. I said—

"This Bill suggested nothing whatever to make it sure that when they had given this additional pasture land, those who took it would be able to make a beneficial use of it, and give a reasonable return to the person to whom it belonged."—(3 Hansard, [303] 144.)

"In short, it made landlords take land from tenants with capital to give it to tenants who had no capital—land which was absolutely worthless to any man who did not possess capital."—(Ibid. 144.)

"That was to say, it was proposed by an Act of the Legislature to force upon the landlords of the Highlands an experiment which, unless capital were forthcoming for the working of it, must be an absolute failure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to give his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) any help whatever towards carrying out the objects of the Bill. The landlords had been willing to try the thing that was now proposed on the consideration that the land should be stocked, or that there should be the means of stocking it. This was the difficulty which had led to failure wherever the experiment had been tried. The Commissioners' Report in regard to Lady Gordon Cathcart's property brought out the fact that large farms, consisting of thousands of acres of land, in the best parts of the High- lands and Islands, had been given over to crofters—in some cases to agricultural crofters, and in others to fishing crofters—and the result from beginning to end had been a total and absolute failure. There had been inadequate stocking, the arrears of rent were very great—in some cases no rent had been paid at all; and, in spite of all stipulations, the old system of destructive sub-division had gone on. One of the Members of the Royal Commission had stated very distinctly these two things—first, that these common grazings formed the real obstacle to improvement; and, second, that capital was indispensable in pastoral farming, if a profit was to be made out of it at all. Although everything had been done that this Bill contemplated, the result was that arrears, which in 1883 amounted to £1,000, in 1884 were £2,000, and in 1885 had increased to £2,800; and during that period Lady Gordon Cathcart had given £1,128 for seed, of which not one-half had been repaid. This was a distinct and clear question which must be dealt with if they would come to a rational conclusion upon it. Either these people were withholding rents which they were able to pay, or, if they were not doing so, this Bill could not do any possible good. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) was on the horns of that dilemma."—(Ibid. 144–5.)

And throughout the Highlands and Islands generally.

My hon. Friend adds "Throughout the Highlands and Islands generally." It is interesting and instructive to get this statement from my hon. Friend now. We have maintained all along that these people are sunk in poverty, that their position does not enable them—from whatever cause you may choose to attribute it to, you must deal with facts as they are—to do more than they are doing now, and that the crofts which they hold are insufficient if they paid no rent at all for them, and got the land in perpetuity, for them to live on in comfort. But the proposal is that they should receive additional land in order that they may cultivate it. I think that a very great deal indeed might be said for that proposition if it could be carried out with any reasonable regard to the rights of other people. But how can a man who is at present so absolutely sunk in poverty be placed in a position of success, unless, indeed, some kind friend would come forward and provide the means? Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway believe this can be successful, and that it can be made to pay. In the case of any speculation which is known and believed to pay, you will find plenty of money in the market to carry it on. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) the other day that he was able to borrow money at £1 12s. 6d. per annum on six months' Exchequer Bills. That is a state of things which is comparatively new in this country. If money is in that position—if these speculations can be made to pay—I am perfectly certain that if my hon. Friends went into the City and offered 2½ per cent for money to be advanced for such a pur- pose they would get the money tomorrow. But I am afraid when these gentlemen to whom they went made their inquiries and read the report of Sir John M'Neill, issued the other day, they would find that in dealing with such a country and climate and population, they never could make any such speculation a success. Is the matter to be dealt with upon every principle of common sense which rules men in their own affairs? Is Her Majesty's Government reasonable in coming to the distinct and definite conclusion that by endeavouring to maintain an excessive population in many parts of the Highlands and Islands you are bolstering up a tottering fabric, which must ultimately and inevitably fall? That is our opinion, and I hope hon. Gentlemen will give us credit for holding that opinion after careful and earnest consideration, and holding it with the deepest possible regret. Our view has always been—and we have not hesitated to state it in this House, and to state it in the face of much obloquy and misrepresentation of our motives—that without a considerable removal of the congested population of the Highlands to some other country where there would be an outcome for their industry, and where they would have some chance of success, there is no hope of relieving the state of things which exists in those congested parts of the Highlands. It is no doubt, true that many people in that part of the country have the greatest aversion to do that which many of us have to submit to in our own families. Many of us have to sacrifice our love of home, and leave our own shores, and seek our fortunes elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness, who brought forward this Motion, has never had reason to regret that he went abroad a good deal, and there are other hon. Members below the Gangway who, no doubt, have done the same with great success. No doubt, these poor people are attached to their glens, and cling to them with a love which it is very difficult for us to appreciate. I admire them for it. It is one of the best features in their character, but it is one of those features which, if it is allowed to take an exaggerated position in a man's mind and affections, does an injury, not only to his own personal interests, but to the community in which he lives. Surely we are not doing a cruel thing in taking such measures as we can to give these people in the Highlands an inducement to throw aside their dread and horror at leaving their native country and establishing themselves elsewhere—in places where they can form happy and prosperous communities. This has been done in other countries, and wherever it has been done efficiently and under good management, it has led to a feeling among the people that it is a wise and sensible thing to do. I can tell my hon. Friends that at the present moment there are a good number of families in the Islands of Scotland who are prepared to go and establish themselves elsewhere the moment a scheme has been devised which will enable them to do so with some reasonable chance of success, and with the prospect of obtaining a comfort which they were not able to secure at home. I begin to feel that my hon. Friends below the Gangway are leaning more and more towards this view of the case. The feeling of agitation is over. As long as there was really a feeling of agitation in the Highlands, any word uttered by hon. Members below the Gangway in favour of emigration would have brought them into great disfavour among those whom they represented. But that feeling is subsiding; and as to the danger to peace and order in the Highlands, I can assure this House that the views of the hon. Member for Caithness on that matter are absolutely groundless. Unless the agitator gets among them again—the agitator whose business it is to keep up excitement and endeavour to create breaches of the law—I am certain from the reports the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) has received, that there is no reason to fear any breach of the law at present. But will hon. Members go among these people and encourage them to take the course which we suggest they ought to take? This is an experiment which the Government are determined to carry out with the utmost rapidity. We hope to be able in the course of a year to remove some families who are willing to go, and to set them up in a distant country where they will meet people of their own blood and people of their own particular sentiments and associations. These people, I am certain, if once we can get them settled, will send home news which will induce hundreds and hundreds of others to follow their example. The moment you have a reasonable number of people leaving these crofts, you at once have land available for the purpose of aiding the others who remain behind. It is one of the wise provisions of the Act passed in 1886, that, in the event of any crofters moving from their crofts, these crofts are not to be appropriated into the general estate, but are to be used for the purpose of increasing the area of the existing holdings. I am certain that you cannot, by the schemes which have been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, really produce that which every honest man desires to produce—namely, a permanent and efficient relief to the crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from the difficulties in which they are at present involved. A mere empirical remedy will do no present good; a mere heroic Act, though it may give temporary relief, will not do any ultimate good. We believe still in the principles we have enunciated over and over again in this House, and we are glad to think that some of these principles are now gaining some sort of acceptance from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. We augur well from that, and if they will join us in that which we are prepared to do, great good may be effected, and the greatest possible blessing to the Highlands and Islands may be accomplished.

said, he entirely agreed with much that had been said by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). At the same time, he thought the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been more satisfactory if he had been a little more distinct in stating the proposals which the Government had in their mind for the relief of the population in the Highlands.

said, his hon. and learned Friend was probably not in the House when, at an earlier period of the evening, it was announced that a full statement would be laid before the House in the form of an estimate on another day. He would have been perfectly ready to have entered more fully into the matter had the plan been properly digested.

said, he thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that statement. He was glad that the Government intended to have the whole subject sifted. The sending of gunboats and marines might be necessary under some circumstances, but he thought they must look to other means for the settlement of the difficulty which existed in the Highlands. It would have been much more satisfactory if the hon. Member who moved (Dr. Clark) and the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Buchanan) who seconded the Motion for Adjournment of the House, had done a little more to show how a remedy could be found for the present condition of things by amending the Crofters' Act. They had not shown how any alteration of the Act could get rid of the difficulty pointed out by the Commission as the reason why the Crofters' Act had been inoperative. The hon. Member who made this Motion for adjournment had not suggested any remedy for the difficulty arising from inability to stock farms.

said, he had pointed out that the recommendations of the Royal Commission would have remedied that.

said, that no one would say that the Report did not lay the greatest stress on emigration.

said, there were two recommendations made by the Royal Commission. One was to give holdings compulsorily, and he had said if that power was given it would be all they asked for.

said, he was pointing out that the House and the Government had not followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the most important was that of emigration, and it had not been acted upon. The reasons pointed out by the Commissioners made it very difficult, to his mind, to amend the Crofters' Act in the direction indicated, and he considered that the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were not enough to enable the House to get out of those difficulties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a very strong statement as to the Government taking means to assist emigration, and hon. Members would look forward with interest to the plan that he would propose, in the hope that it would be found to put an end to the difficulties experienced during the last three months.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) had pointed out that the hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Motion before the House, had given no explanation of the way in which the Act could be amended. They wanted more land for the crofters, which the Government would not give to the extent of an inch. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate bad given them many unanswerable arguments, and one of them was that there had been no application for any land; but he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he could give a single instance of a crofter getting an inch of land from a deer forest?

said, he had always assumed that when hon. Gentlemen in 1866 pressed that land for the deer forests should not be taken from the crofts, that in pressing this they had some practical end in view.

said, they certainly had a practical end in view. They wanted the migration of crofters from the congested districts into other parts; but the Act said that the land of the crofters was to be contiguous to and conterminous with the deer forests. But the owners took care to drive away not only crofters, but publicans. They would not have an hotel within five miles, and hon. Members knew that one had not long ago been shut up on that account. The moral of this was to allow the crofters to get more land wherever they could find it. The Commissioners recommended that from the congested districts the crofters should be migrated to places where there was room for them. The last Government did not give that power, however, and they were not allowed to remove any men from those districts. It was left for the present Government to break leases in Ireland; and, if that were so, why should not the large farms in the Highlands be broken down to afford more land for the crofters? The Royal Commissioners also recommended that harbours should be built, but that had not been done. Then there was the question of the school rates in the Highlands, which amounted to 6s. 8d. in the pound; and he asked if the Government could not have done something to relieve the people in that respect? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there were very few applications for the increase of holdings. But there had been 310 applications, and he might tell the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the reason there were not more was that the crofters knew it was a hopeless case. They had, over and over again, pointed out that this was not a question of rent, but that it was a question of the want of land; and the Land Commissioners had told them that the principal point urged in almost every district was the restriction of the area of the holdings. The Commissioners said—

"That in most cases a considerable degree of indulgence, almost amounting to benevolence, might be discovered in the case of small holdings;"

"that the grievance of increased rents had been urged in many instances, but with much less force and earnestness than that of the restriction of areas."

said, he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, by adopting a different course, might have saved much of the discussion which had taken place. He was quite certain that he did not mean to maintain that nothing should be done in order to make beneficial the Act which that House had taken so much trouble to pass for the benefit of the crofters. He did not think they could go behind that Act. The House of Commons intended that the crofters' holdings should be extended, and the Commission was expressly appointed to carry out that intention. But as it very frequently happened, Bills, however carefully drafted, sometimes when in operation failed to carry out the intention of their framers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had told them that the portion of the Act which related to the enlargement of the crofters' holdings was the one to which he attached the greatest importance, but he said there was not a single instance of an enlargement of a holding having taken place. The Crofters' Commission had issued a Re- port in which they referred to the reason for the failure of the Act as a perfectly obvious one—namely, that the Act required that the land from which the enlargement was sought must be "contiguous to the holding." That was a matter which he thought could be got over without difficulty. The second difficulty to which they called attention was the poverty of the crofters, which prevented them stocking their holdings. That might be a difficulty if the Government were in power which passed the Act, because they had declared their intention to give no money from the public funds for the purpose of carrying out the Act. He remembered, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was in Opposition, how sarcastic he was upon the Government for taking up that line of policy, and how remorselessly he chaffed them for not putting their hands in their pockets to do something practical in the direction of carrying out the recommendations of the Crofter Commission. The present Government did not look at the matter now in the same light; but they were giving bonuses for fishing boats and emigration purposes. And what did all that result in? He had risen particularly to call attention to one small matter regarding which there could be no diversity of opinion, and which, if the law were amended, would greatly facilitate the operation of the Crofters' Act. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looked through the Report, he would see that in a great number of cases the Crofter Commission had not been able to overtake the work—that such and such applications had not been attended to, "because the district had not been visited by the Commission;" and that in another the Commissioners "had been obliged to leave the district before they had attended to the applications;" and so on. Why should not the Government do what he had over and over again suggested—namely, to strengthen the Commission, which would enable them to get through their work without delay? The cost of two additional Commissioners would be very little, and if these were appointed he believed the country would be able to get out of the Act what good there was in it. That was a point on which he was certain the Government might legislate with assist- ance and support of every section of the House.

said, he should not have ventured to intervene in the debate were it not for the fact that about 12 months ago he had visited, on the invitation of the representatives of the crofters themselves, the districts affected, and spent some time in the Islands of Lewis and Skye, as well as the adjacent mainland. During that visit he had made inquiries of the people themselves as to what their grievances were, and as to the remedies which they thought the Legislature ought to provide for them. He had seen them in little knots on the road side, at meetings in schoolrooms and out-of-the-way places; and altogether he must have spoken with many hundreds of them before he finished his tour, and in every case the account which they gave of their condition and wants was almost precisely the same. It was quite true that the great difficulty in regard to the crofter population was the insufficiency of the land which they cultivated. The question of rent was altogether of minor importance, and no doubt any grievance with regard to that had been adequately met by the legislation passed three years ago. But with regard to the desire for more land—he might say the necessity for more land, if these people were to subsist in their present situation—there could, in his opinion, be no doubt whatever. In many cases the occupants of the holdings, or their predecessors, had taken them in the hope and expectation of gaining an extraneous subsistence, either from the getting of kelp, or from other kinds of labour. But those other kinds of labour had entirely failed them, and they found it absolutely impossible to get a living out of the land. In many cases the difficulty had no doubt been caused by the improvidence of the people themselves, who had, when they got the land, allowed cottars to settle on it, and had allowed their holdings to be sub-divided, so that the land which was originally sufficient for one occupant had ceased to be sufficient for its present population. To these facts, which could not possibly be disputed, must be added the sentiment of the people that they were suffering a grievous injustice on the ground that the land had in past times belonged in some sort to themselves, and that they had been removed from it against their will to make way for large farms and deer forests. They accordingly claimed that they should be restored to what they said their ancestors possessed. He had also on his visit seen many landlords, whose story, of course, put a different face on the statement received from the crofters. The landowners generally disputed the historical accuracy of this sentimental grievance, and maintained that the land was never the property of the crofters, or of their predecessors; and that the transfer of the population which had undoubtedly taken place was as much in the interest of the crofters themselves as of the landlords. They maintained that at the time the crofters were thereby offered a better chance of livelihood by the seaside than they could possibly have obtained in the inland parts to which they now desired to return. But whatever might be the absolute historical truth of the matter, it was perfectly certain that this sentimental grievance on the part of the crofters very much strengthened their feeling that it was unfair to propose to them any other alternative until the alternative of migration had been exhausted, and he was convinced that no scheme of emigration would have a fair chance until the crofters were satisfied that the Legislature had done all that could be reasonably expected from it in affording them the opportunity of obtaining a larger portion of land in their own country. But even if the Legislature were to do all that hon. Members from Scotland were now asking, it must not be supposed that any very large and material amelioration of the condition of the crofters would result. There were two difficulties in the way, to which allusion had been made by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. In the first place, there was not enough land to provide for all the population. At the present time in Lewis, if the whole of the land were given to the crofters, it could not possibly provide for more than one-half of the population. But in answer to this the crofters said—"Give us what there is, and when that has been exhausted we will talk about emigration. Let those who can be provided for be provided for at home." Then there was the second difficulty, which was still more important and hard to overcome—namely, the impossibility of the crofters stocking the land, or doing anything satisfactory with it if they obtained it. He was told, a short time ago, that the celebrated Ben Lee pasture land, which was the original cause of the disturbances in Skye, and which, by the act of the Commission, was handed over to the crofters, remained without a single head of cattle upon it, the crofters being unable to stock it. That, at any rate, was the case 12 months ago. It was all very well to say that the Government could find the money to stock the farms. He protested against that; and when he was with the crofters he told them that he would never support such a proposal, and that he believed that the House of Commons would not undertake so risky an operation as that of lending money on stock to these small tenants. It was a doubtful policy to lend money on boats and nets, which could, at all events, be insured, and on land which could not be removed, but those things offered a better security than cattle and sheep; and if ever money were to be lent in the manner suggested, he felt quite sure that the greater portion of it would be lost. He had pointed out to the crofters that they had no right to call on the people of England, Scotland and Wales, who were, many of them, quite as poor as themselves, to guarantee this assistance. The conclusion at which he had arrived, and which he was most anxious to impress on the crofters, who were most worthy of sympathy and assistance, was that a great portion of them must seek their remedy in emigration. By their own admission there was no room for them all at home. Some of them must go; and at the present moment the point was how those who went could be best provided for. He did not hesitate to say that this operation must be carried out with the assistance of the Government, and that course, in his opinion, need not involve any serious risk. The plan would be materially assisted if the Government would consider, before bringing forward their proposals, whether they might not at the same time offer some facilities for migration. He did not think those facilities would be availed of to a large extent, but he believed that the sentiment of the people would be met if they were told that in future, at all events, those who could stock additional land would be provided with it, so far as such land existed. He believed that the whole difficulty of extending the holdings lay in the words of the Act, "contiguous holding." He could not for the life of him see why those words should remain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had recommended his Act to the House very much on the ground of the enormous abuse created by the deer forests of Mr. Winans. Everybody in the House admitted the abuse, and would be glad to see it remedied; but those words had made it impossible to take one inch of his lands. That was certainly a scandal, and he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) could not conceive why some portion of the enormous deer forest of Mr. Winans on the mainland, which was admirably suited to the purposes of the crofters, should not be taken for the benefit of the crofters, even though they lived on the Islands of Lewis and Skye, which were not contiguous to his property. He had risen for the purpose of urging upon the Government that this matter should, at all events, be taken into consideration, although he entirely agreed with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the cardinal and real remedy was to be found in a generous and carefully devised scheme of emigration.

said, he did not wish to intervene in the debate for the purpose of complaining of the remarks of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, but simply to say a few words because of the urgency of this question. The crofters had stated before the Commission and by their Representatives in that House that they could not get the quantity of land which they desired to cultivate. In February of this year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had pointed out the reason why the Crofters Act was a failure, and hon. Gentlemen had now got the evidence of the Crofters' Commission, over whom agitation could have no control whatever, and that evidence fully corroborated all that hon. Members on those Benches had said upon the subject. Now, the answer which they got from the Government was unmistakable—namely, that they would provide for the emigration of the people who wanted land to cultivate to the extent of £10,000. With all due deference to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, he would like some further confirmation of his statement that the people desired emigration. Then, with regard to Lewis, did the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate mean to say that it was typical of the whole of the Highlands?

said, that was not the case either in regard to population or distress.

said, he was glad of that admission, because in that case the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to Lewis did not apply to any part of the Highlands. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD: They apply in degree.] He (Mr. A. Sutherland) was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had approached this question in a tone and spirit quite different from that of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. He (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had gone to the Highlands, and conversed with the people themselves, and he thought if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate were to do the same he would considerably modify the statement he had made. The contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there had been no application for land in the case of deer forests, had been amply disposed of by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Dr. Macdonald). The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there was power in the Act to extend holdings, but the clause providing for this was limited by no less than 20 conditions, and it was a mere mockery to tell the people, under the circumstances, that there was power to enlarge holdings. He was glad that the Government of the day which passed the Act had no responsibility for that clause. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that they should first exhaust the resources at home before emigration was tried; but the people distinctly refused to emigrate until they had seen what could be done by the enlargement of holdings from these extensive deer forests and sheep farms. He said it was nothing less than a calamity to receive the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made to the question put to him; and he hoped he would be better advised, and see his way to withdraw the opinion he had given. But if the answer of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was the last word of the Government, hon. Members would know exactly where they stood.

said, that the Members for Scotland on those Benches were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) for his sympathy with the people in the Highlands. The cause of the failure of the Act was a radical fault in the measure itself as respects the enlargement of holdings. It had been pointed out from the first that it would be inoperative, and the result had proved the truth of that statement. He (Sir George Campbell) thought that if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would try to get over the difficulty by amending the Act, instead of quoting long speeches from Hansard to show that he always was utterly opposed to the whole system of the enlargement of holdings, the Government might find a way out of this difficulty.

said, he had never stated anything of the kind. He had said most distinctly that if the scheme of the Government were accepted, the removal of the people from the congested districts would set free land for the enlargement of the holdings of those who remained.

said, he quite understood that; but as regarded any other enlarging of holdings, he repeated that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done nothing but use all his forensic eloquence to prove that it ought not to be done. The difficulty in the case of Lewis arose, no doubt, from the increase which had taken place of the inhabitants; but in the Highlands at large there were lands which had once been cultivated, and might be cultivated again, and he thought, notwithstanding that the difficulties were very great, something might be done. With regard to the advance of money, he pointed out, although he admitted the difficulties referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that the crofters were not large in number as compared with the whole popula- tion of the Kingdom, and that this rich country, which could spend £70,000 on a picture, and many millions in miserable wars, might very well do something, if only a little, to aid them in stocking the land. The remedy of the Government was emigration. But he could not admit that this was a simple and easy remedy, and one which would get rid of the whole difficulty. It would cost at least as much to settle a crofter in America as in Scotland, and, looking to climate and habits, they would not always succeed. The Government had done a good deal for Ireland; they had amended the Irish Land Act, and he was at a loss to understand why they should not also amend the Crofters' Act.

said, he had the honour of sitting on the Commission of 1883, and he must say that the question of enlarged holdings was a remedy pressed upon the Commission most strongly. He was very much disappointed with the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate; and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) would not allow the debate to close without saying something more than they had heard from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. If they had heard the last word of the Government, he feared the effect would be very disastrous for the people of the Highlands.

said, he wished to make an observation with regard to one question that had been raised in the course of the discussion—namely, as to repayment by the crofters of money advanced on the security of crops and cattle. Under a former Government, Lord Cross had three years ago introduced into the House of Lords a Bill for the purpose of enabling a body of rich men, capitalists and philanthropists, to advance money in that way. The noble Lord had studied the question very deeply, and Lord Salisbury took upon himself the introduction of the measure referred to; but owing to the drafting, and the fact that the Bill was brought in at a moment's notice, and perhaps from the fact that the noble Lord had not fully appreciated all the circumstances, the then Government, which was a Liberal Government, objected that the Bill would confine the lending powers to a certain body of men and would not make the provisions general. He would take this opportunity of asking the Government whether they would in the present case give facilities to persons of capital for advancing money to the crofters for the purpose of stocking their holdings?

Sir, I rise to say a few words in response to two questions put to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, first, I may be allowed to say that I cannot help thinking we are acting somewhat harshly towards the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) by taking away from him the time he has reason to expect will be conceded to him. I may also point out that the observations of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) illustrate the inconvenience of such Motions as that which is now before us, the subject he has raised being one of which no Notice has been given. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) has asked me to supplement the answer of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). Well, Sir, the answer of my right hon. and learned Friend is, I am sorry to say, the answer of the Government. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will himself perceive that it would not be wise for us to hold out to the crofter population, for whom everyone in this House has sympathy—expectations which in the nature of things cannot be fulfilled. It is not a difficult matter for persons to make promises, but it is incumbent upon those who do so to be quite certain that their promises are fairly capable of being realized. One of the difficulties we have to face is that there is no adjacent land which can be added to many of the existing crofts, and I know of no means by which land can be created for the purpose. This, Sir, is one of the inherent difficulties of the case which has to be confronted when dealing with this question. Another inherent difficulty is that of the absence of capital and the absolute poverty of the crofters themselves; and in the course of this and the previous discussions which have taken place on the subject, no hon. Gentleman has pointed out how land can be cultivated unless the owner has capital to enable him to do so, nor has any hon. Gentleman shown how capital can be advanced in the present case with proper security for repayment. The hon. Member for Montgomery has asked if the Government will give facilities to enable persons of capital to advance money upon land; but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as a matter of fact, such facilities already exist. There can be no doubt whatever that the difficulties which have been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) are real difficulties, and such as the Government would not be justified in minimizing or ignoring; and I may add that we should be unworthy of the position which we occupy if we were to seek to deceive the House of Commons, or the unfortunate crofter population, by holding out expectations or promises which would prove utterly fallacious and could not possibly be realized. Therefore, Sir, if the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) thinks it right to press his Motion to a Division, the Government will be bound in duty to oppose it; but I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that some hon. Gentlemen might vote for the Motion, simply to avoid a night's debate upon a subject which those who sympathized with the object of the hon. Member for Northampton wished to discuss.

said, in deference to the sense of the House, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No, no!"]

I beg to give Notice that, unless the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), or another Member of the Party to which he belongs, take action in the matter, I shall to-morrow move that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the election of a Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of the City of Dublin, now vacant.

I should like to ask whether this Notice has been given in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), and whether he has given his approval to a course which is entirely contrary to the practice of the House and to the courtesies usually observed?

Perhaps I might be allowed to answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that the action of my hon. and gallant Friend has not been taken in concert with me, nor in concert with the Government at all. The understanding which generally binds official Members of the House is that 24 hours' Notice should be given of the intention of either side to move for the issue of a new Writ, and the Motion is generally made by a Representative of the Party to which the Member whose seat is rendered vacant belongs. I was not here when my hon. and gallant Friend gave his Notice; but if he gave 24 hours' Notice, no doubt the understanding between the two sides is kept. As far as I am myself concerned, I will not take any action in the matter.