I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, while suitors resident in England and Ireland can sue a debtor in Scotland without giving security for costs, a person resident in Scotland or Ireland suing a debtor in an English County Court is compelled, under Order 5, Rule 7, to find security for costs to the satisfaction of the Registrar before a summons is issued; and whether he will endeavour to get this anomaly rectified?

I was not aware of the existence of any such difference in practice as is referred to until I saw the question of the hon. Member, and I cannot, therefore, believe that any widespread grievance exists. I will, however, look into the matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General when it is proposed to commence the erection of the new post office in Lisburn?

The Board of Public Works in Ireland report that they expect to make a contract in July next for the erection of the new post office at Lisburn.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the amount paid last year for the conveyance of the Australian mails on twenty-six occasions by ordinary express train from Naples to Calais; whether he can state the amount which would have been payable if those mails had been sent by the special express service from Brindisi to Calais; whether he can state, or estimate, the weights of letters and other mail matter respectively which arrived from Australia by the last Orient Steam Navigation Com- pany's vessel at Naples, and which were transmitted overland to Calais for London; and whether he will take into consideration the fact that the amount paid for letters by the special train from Calais to Brindisi, and vice versa, is ten francs eighty cents, per kilogramme, against four francs per kilogramme for letters charged by ordinary express train from Naples or Brindisi to Calais, and also to the fact that the Australian mails arriving in Naples, and forwarded thence by the ordinary express trains, arrive in London from two to four days under contract time?

The answer to the first paragraph is £5,265; to the second £10,089; to the third, letters and postcards 1,4691bs. 7oz., other articles 14,1261bs. 2½oz.; to the fourth, the amount paid for letters by the special train is not exactly ten francs eighty centimes a kilogramme, but ten francs forty centimes. The contract with the Orient Company is not for delivery in London, but at Naples. The average period of arrival at Naples before contract time in 1891 was two days nine hours, and of the Peninsular and Oriental at Brindisi two days two hours. The conditions of the service are not identical.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the date of the last Report from the Governor of the Gold Coast respecting political prisoners confined in that Colony; at what intervals has he instructions to report on their condition, place of confinement, and cause of detention, and how often has he done so since the year 1883; how many political prisoners have been tried and convicted by the ordinary law, and how many detained under Ordinances of the Gold Coast Legislative Council since the year 1883, how many have died in confinement since that date, and how many have been released; are there any persons now detained against whom no charge has been preferred, and, if so, how many, and since when; is Bo Amponsam, late King of Denkera, against whom a charge was made and dismissed, and who was detained under Ordinance No. 5 of 1888, still imprisoned, and is Geraldo de Lima, against whom a charge of murder was not substantiated and who was detained under Ordinance 15 of 1884, still imprisoned; and, if so, will he be brought to trial or discharged; what legal means is there existing at the Gold Coast of testing the legality of the arrest or detention of political prisoners in that Colony; and will he lay upon the Table the most recent Report from the Governor on these matters?

The date of the last Report is 28th July, 1891. The Governor has instructions, as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 2nd instant, to report every six months. These instructions were given by despatch dated 20th May, 1891. The Governor will be asked to supply the information mentioned in the third paragraph of the question. The fourth paragraph was answered by me on the 2nd instant. There are five Gold Coast political prisoners against whom no charge has been preferred before the Courts, as their offences are not such as the Courts could properly take cognizance of; but their release would be dangerous to the peace and order of the Colony and Protectorate. Bo Amponsam, ex-King of Denkera, died in Elmina Castle of cerebral apoplexy on 15th November, 1890. Geraldo de Lima is still detained as a prisoner. He cannot now be brought to trial, and in the Report of July last the Governor stated that he could not recommend his release. The subsequent Report which should have been sent in January has not yet been received, probably owing to the Governor's recent illness from influenza; but it has been called for. For information with regard to Geraldo de Lima's past history, I may refer the hon. Member to the Blue Book (C. 4477) of July, 1885, which will show what a dangerous character he is. The answer to the sixth paragraph is that there are no legal means. It has long been recognised by successive Governments that, in the peculiar circumstances of the West African Colonies, it is occasionally necessary to arrest and detain persons in custody under authority conferred by special legislation. The exercise of this power has, however, always been most carefully watched by the Secretary of State, and has only been resorted to when absolutely necessary for the safety of the Colony. As regards the last paragraph, the Report merely records the Governor's opinion that at the date at which it was written it would not be possible to release the prisoners; but I will show the Report to the hon. Member if he desires it.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen a letter recently published in the Gold Coast newspaper by Geraldo de Lima, appealing to the English people for justice, having failed to get any justice from several appeals to the Government?

I have not seen the article to which the hon. Member refers. But if the hon. Member will read the Blue Book I have mentioned he will find that Geraldo de Lima is one of the most dangerous characters in the country.

What is the date of it?

July, 1885.

But does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that the Members of this House are to believe all that is stated by the Governor?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the constant breaches of the Merchant Shipping Act in the ports of Shields and Sunderland by boarding masters, and particularly by one boarding master named Charles Nielson, of South Shields; whether he is aware that Nielson conveyed ten foreigners from South Shields to Sunderland, placed them on board a tug, subsequently transporting them to the ss. Burlington, in the Sunderland Roads, and that the deputy shipping master signed such men, well knowing that they were supplied in contravention of the 147th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, which provides that it shall be unlawful for any person other than the owner, or master, or mate of the ship, or some person who is a bond fide servant, to supply seamen under such circumstances; and whether the President of the Board of Trade will enforce the above section of the Act by taking proceedings against the boarding master for supplying men as aforesaid and also against the deputy shipping master for signing on men so supplied?

The Seamen's and Firemen's Union have drawn my attention to the case of the ss. Burlington. I have received a report from the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Sunderland, from which it appears that the master of the ship made all the necessary arrangements with the office of the Shipping Federation for obtaining the crew, and that it was at his request that the crew signed on board the vessel. In these circumstances, I do not at present think it is a case for a prosecution; but before deciding, I have directed further inquiries to be made as to the position and action of Nielson in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal has decided to push on the operations for a Cadastral Survey of Behar, notwithstanding the serious distress prevailing there, and the adverse opinion of nearly the whole of the local officers; whether the Government of Bengal has received urgent protests against the measure from the representatives of the tenant cultivators of the province, and whether the Board of Revenue has stated to the Lieutenant-Governor that, certainly in one district, and probably in others, "a general enhancement of rent might result from the Survey"; whether the Lieutenant-Governor has admitted that the result of the Survey will be "an increase of the rents now paid by the most influential among them" (the cultivators), and whether, on the occasion of an experimental Survey made in Behar, the tenants ran away on the approach of the Survey party, and what is the total amount of the estimated cost of the Survey in the four districts of North Behar that will fall on the cultivators, and through what agency, in how long a time, and by what instalments, will this charge be exacted from them?

(1.) The present intention is to begin the Survey in parts of two districts of North Behar in October next, by which time, if the coming rainy season is favourable, the distress will have abated. The Secretary of State is not aware of the adverse opinion of nearly the whole of the local officers. (2.) Representations againt the Survey have been received, and publicly answered by the Local Government in Bengal. It is the case that the Board reported that there might be an enhancement of rent in the Champarun District. (3.) The words quoted are to be found in a letter from the Bengal Government. The officer who made the experimental Survey reported that the ryots, as soon as they understood the matter—

"Attended the Survey work readily, and took pains to see that their lands and rents were correctly recorded—they took an interest in the proceedings, and recognised the value of the record."

(4.) Neither the proportion of the cost that will fall upon the ryots nor the manner and mode of incidence have yet been settled. The whole cost of the work is not expected to exceed eight annas per acre.

Arising out of the answer of my hon. Friend, I should like to ask him whether the House is to understand that this Cadastral Survey has not been commenced and will not be commenced until the failure or otherwise of the coming monsoon has been established, that is to say not until October; and is it a fact that no appointment to the headship of this Survey has been made in Bengal?

The latter part of the question of the hon. Gentleman is new, and I shall be glad if he will put it down on the Paper. With regard to the first part of the question, it is the case that the Survey will not commence, as I said in the opening words of my reply, till October next. Whether its commencement will or will not depend upon the nature of the monsoon I cannot say at this moment; but I believe myself that it will not depend upon that factor.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the Return ordered 8th March will be printed, giving the Correspondence between the India Office and the Government of India on the proposed Cadastral Survey of Behar?

The Return moved for by the hon. Member, ordered 8th March, has not been ordered to be printed; but the printing of it is not a matter over which the Secretary of State has any control. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with the proper authorities.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as reported in the Times of the 16th instant, the Newfoundland Assembly have rejected the French Shore Bill, and whether it is correct that that Bill was altered after three of the delegates, Messrs. Emerson, Movine, and Munroe, had left London; and, if so, to what extent the Bill has been altered, and why?

The Bill has been thrown out. The three delegates named left while the negotiations were in progress; when, of course, the Bill had not assumed its final form. But the Premier, Sir William White-way, and Mr. Harvey, who is also a Member of the Colonial Government, remained, and were distinctly understood to hold full power to continue the discussion, otherwise the negotiations must have come to an end. The principle of the Bill—namely, the appointment of Judicial Commissioners and the creation of a Court—had been agreed to before the three delegates left, and the subsequent alterations related to the details of the measure, and could not be explained within the limits of an answer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the petitions of British shipowners representing about five million tons of shipping using the Suez Canal, in which the shipowners strongly protest against the provisional regulations, and the proposed authorisation of the passage of tank steamers laden with petroleum on the waters of the Canal by reason of its climatic and other exceptional conditions; and, in view of the fact that the shipowners' protests have been sustained to the fullest in the Report of the eminent petroleum authorities, Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood, Her Majesty's Government will instruct the British Directors on the Board of the Suez Canal to urge, as Directors, upon the Suez Canal Company, that the whole question shall be re-considered, with the object of securing the protection of navigation in the Suez Canal?

had notice of the following question: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have communicated to the other Signatory Powers under the Suez Canal Charter the fact that British shipowners, representing over five million tons, have protested against the provisional regulations and proposed authorisation of the passage on the waters of the Canal of tank steamers laden with petroleum, as a danger which threatens the security, the safety, and the freedom from interruption of the Suez Canal?

Perhaps the hon. Member for Paddington will allow me to answer his question at the same time. In answer to the hon. Member for Hull, I have to say that the Report of Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood has been referred to the British Directors of the Suez Canal Company. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Paddington, I beg to say that I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There are no Signatory Powers to whom the sug- gested communication could be made. The original concessions for the formation of the Company and for the construction of the Canal were granted to M. de Lesseps by the Viceroy of Egypt and confirmed by the Sultan's Firman. So long as the Company complies with the stipulation in the Concession of 5th January, 1856, to treat the flags of all nations equally, Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi to interfere with the decisions of the Company.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statements by Mr. Hume Nisbet, that in 1886 a labour vessel came into the Mary borough River

"Deluged with blood and filled with wounded men, through a rising of the cargo on board";

and that violence and ravishments are perpetrated by the lawless crews of the labour vessels upon, the almost nude native women whom they convey to the labour plantations; whether he has seen Dr. Paton's statement made in 1889, that at a hospital on the Queensland plantations which he visited he found the patients to be nothing but native women and girls about to be confined in child bearing, and that many white children were borne by them; and that multitudes of native women died at the Queensland plantation hospitals from abuse on the plantations; had the Queensland Government anything but the bare word of the ship's agent and crew as to whether returned labourers were landed on their own islands and amongst their own people; and whether he has seen Dr. Paton's statement that in one case many had been landed on an island twenty miles from their home, while the ship's company declared they had fulfilled the conditions; and whether many natives were murdered through being placed amongst hostile tribes; whether it is true that the Commissioner of British New Guinea has forbidden the recruiting of Kanakas from the territory under his juristion; is he aware that on the islands of the New Hebrides from which these men were recruited twenty-three distinct languages are spoken, many of which are unknown to anyone but the natives, and that in consequence the conditions of their engagements could not have been explained to the natives; and whether in view of these facts, the Government still adhere to their decision to allow the Act to become law?

In answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, my attention has not been drawn to the statement made by Mr. H. Nisbet, nor have I seen that of Dr. Paton of 1889. The Secretary of State cannot accept these statements as correct without inquiry; but the attention of the Colonial Government shall be drawn to them, and they shall be asked to report. With regard to the third paragraph, the Queensland Government Agent is instructed to attend the vessel, and to see that the regulations are carried out. I believe it is a fact that some years ago returned labourers were occasionally landed in error upon other than their own islands. This arose from the difficulty of identifying the islands, which were then imperfectly known. I have not seen the statement of Dr. Paton referred to. As regards the fourth paragraph, the prohibition of recruiting Kanakas in New Guinea is contained in a New Guinea Ordinance of 1888, which was approved by the Queensland Government. In reply to the fifth paragraph, I am aware that there is a great diversity of languages in the islands, and considerable difficulty has, in the past, been experienced as regards interpretation; but this difficulty is diminishing, in consequence of the large number of labourers who have now been returned to their homes from Queensland and other places, and who are able to explain to their fellows the nature of the agreement they are entering into. As regards the last paragraph, I would call the hon. Member's attention to a letter from Bishop Selwyn, late Bishop of Melanesia, which appeared in the Guardian of 4th May of this year, in which he says—

"I cannot help feeling that the indiscriminate condemnation of the traffic which has been expressed is likely to do more harm than good. It was true of the traffic in its beginning. It is not true of the traffic as now conducted."

I can add nothing further to the full statement I made yesterday.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office is in possession of any Report from the Government of Queensland respecting the manner in which the Kanaka traffic has been carried on since 1886 under the Regulations at present in force; and whether he will lay such Report upon the Table?

A Report has been issued annually since 1889 by the Queensland Immigration Department, and printed among the Sessional Papers every year. These Reports will be included in the Papers to be laid before Parliament.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he may have them?

With the least possible delay. I cannot fix the date.

Before the Vote on Account?

I cannot fix the date; it is impossible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Revised Regulations respecting the Kanaka labour traffic have been issued by the Government of Queensland; and whether he will lay a copy of these upon the Table, and also a copy of the Regulations they are intended to supersede?

The existing Regulations will be included in the correspondence to be laid before Parliament; and the revised ones, if not received in time for that Paper, will be added in a supplementary one. A telegram has been sent requesting that copies may be sent home as soon as settled.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is not a fact that when he was asked a question on this subject he read a telegram to the House stating that these Revised Regulations were either issued or were about to be issued?

Did I not understand the right hon. Gentleman yesterday to say that he had telegraphed that all these Revised Regulations should be sent by telegraph, and that they should not be sent by post?

No, I did not promise that; I promised to telegraph for them. In reply to the previous question, I am not aware that these Revised Rules have yet been issued, or are in process of revision at this moment.

Perhaps it would clear up the matter if I asked the right hon. Gentleman the question whether I am right in understanding that there are two sets of Papers—first of all, Papers which he will lay immediately, and, secondly, those Regulations which he will lay when they arrive?

Yes.

And will the right hon. Gentleman also say when the Regulations leave Queensland, and when he expects them?

I cannot say when they leave Queensland, or when they are likely to be here.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to inquire?

I sent a telegram this morning on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any information as to the condition of the two fishermen, Michael Cronin and M'Inerney, who were shot by the Limerick Fisheries Conservators' bailiffs on the 8th instant; whether the revolvers have yet been taken from the bailiffs, or is it proposed to do so; whether he is aware that these fishermen, who have to live by their calling, were duly licensed to fish, and were engaged on their own waters when the chief bailiff's steam launch ran into their nets and destroyed them, and when they resisted they were fired upon; and whether he will cause the inquiry repeatedly asked for by the fishermen into the composition and management of the Fisheries Board to be held at once?

This question is the subject of legal proceedings, and I do not think I can add anything to what I said yesterday; but I shall make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations in accordance with the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts have during the last six months been received by the Limavady Board of Guardians from Aghanloo, Myroe, Fruithill, and Lislane; whether any improvement schemes have been prepared by the Sanitary Authority; whether a memorial, in accordance with the provisions of the Labourers Act, 1891, has been received by the Local Government Board from any of these districts; and whether it is his intention to obtain a Report upon the sanitary condition of the cottages in this part of County Derry from the Inspector to the Local Government Board?

Representations have been received by the Limavady Board of Guardians from persons residing in the districts mentioned. The Guardians, after reading reports from the medical officers of health, decided that new cottages were not required in the electoral divisions of Aghanloo and Fruithill, there being several unoccupied houses in those districts. They also decided that the owners of the houses represented to be unsanitary should put them into a sanitary condition. As regards Lislane electoral division, the Guardians are of opinion that it has a sufficient number of houses. In Myroe electoral division they are taking steps for the erection of two cottages. Representations have bees received by the Local Government Board on the subject; but, under the circumstances represented, they have decided not to interfere at present with the Guardians' discretion in the cases.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that several prosecutions have been and are being conducted by the Inland Revenue against Gas Companies, especially that in Sunderland, and against certain chemical manufacturers of the products of coal gas, for infringing an Act passed in 1846 (9 and 10 Vic, c. 90) making it compulsory for every person keeping a "still" to take out a licence for the same, and pay a duty of 10s. per annum, and in default a penalty not exceeding £50; whether stills for the manufacture of gas products have been in use for upwards of thirty years without any attempt to tax them; whether such stills come under the Revenue Act for the prevention of the manufacture of spirits by unlicensed persons; and whether, if the Inland Revenue wish to tax a piece of apparatus which is not used for distilling spirit, he will direct the preparation of an Act of Parliament for the special purpose, instead of permitting an old Act to be used in such cases?

There has been a prosecution against the Sunderland Gas Company at the instance of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for recovery of the penalty of £50 imposed by the Act 9 and 10 Vic, cap. 90, for keeping a still without a licence. The prosecution was heard on the 6th inst. and dismissed, and a special case is to be stated for the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division as to whether the still used by the Company is a still for the keeping of which a licence is required under the Act. In the opinion of the Board of Revenue these stills are capable of being used for the production of spirit. But as the matter is still sub judice, I will not express any opinion upon it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether James M'Kevitt, sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude at the Liverpool Assizes, 1881, is still confined in Chatham Prison; why was he not removed to Portland Prison with the treason felony convicts; when will he be entitled to discharge on a ticket-of-leave; how has he been employed from his conviction to the present; and was he examined by the visitors who took evidence in Chatham Prison in 1890 as to the treatment of treason felony prisoners then confined there; if not, for what special reason was he omitted? The hon. Gentleman also had notice of the following question: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state where the prisoners John Duff, Thomas Callan, and Michael Harkins, whose names are given in the Report of the 19th April, 1890, relating to the treatment of prisoners in Chatham, are at present confined; and what was the date of their convictions and length of their sentences?

The convict James M'Kevitt is still at Chatham Prison, but will shortly be removed to Portland. Arrangements have been proceeding for closing Chatham Prison, and many convicts have been transferred to other prisons; M'Kevitt has hitherto not been one of them. There has been no special reason for retaining him at Chatham. On 1st April, 1893, he will be entitled to discharge, supposing that his conduct has been good. He has been employed as a labourer and as a cleaner. He was not examined by the visitors at Chatham in 1890, whose report states that he was in the infirmary at the time, and that he had informed the Chairman that he had no complaint to make, except as to his sentence. John Duff was convicted on 12th November, 1885, was sentenced to twenty years' penal servitude, and is now at Portland Prison. Thomas Callan was convicted on 30th January, 1888, was sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude, and is now at Chatham Prison. Michael Harkins was convicted on 30th January, 1888, was sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude, and was released on licence on medical grounds on 12th August, 1891.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what complaint he was suffering from when he was released?

Oh, I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether appeals have from time to time reached the Board of Inland Revenue and Treasury on behalf of the officers of the Inland Revenue, asking for redress-for certain alleged grievances, and complaining of class distinctions in the same grade and among officers performing the same or similar duties, and alleging that such distinctions prevent the great body of officers reaching the maximum salary of their grade, and also complaining of the withdrawal of remuneration for the collection of agricultural statistics in England and Scotland, and of certain differences in salary by which certain first class officers get from £10 to £40 per annum more than expectant superior officers who hold higher rank; and whether he will cause these complaints to be inquired into?

Appeals have been made from time to time by officers of the Inland Revenue with reference to alleged grievances; but I must remind the hon. Member that it is only a year and a half ago since the Treasury examined these grievances in conjunction with the Board of Inland Revenue, and dealt in a broad manner with most of the points which might be proved to give real ground for complaint or to show justification for increased remuneration. But other claims of the officers they were not prepared to meet; for instance, the claim that classification should be abolished and that practically an officer should be advanced from step to step without selection or examination, simply by seniority. I have several times answered the question referring to the alleged withdrawal of remuneration for the collection of agricultural statistics. In 1890, when the changes which I have mentioned were made in the service, one of the objects was so to readjust salaries as to compensate the officers employed in the collection of agricultural statistics for the withdrawal of the special remuneration for that work. In 1891, it was found that in certain cases the arrangements made would work to the detri- ment of a few officers, and further changes were made to insure that no officer should receive less remuneration than he was receiving before. With reference to some minor complaints, I am at this moment engaged in carefully examining them.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Section 96 (16), of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, deprives County Councils in Scotland of all the powers vested in them in the whole of Part 2 of that Act, or only of the powers conferred on County Councils by Section 45 thereof; and, in a county which has not been divided into districts under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, Sections 77 and 78, to what Public Authority is the Medical Officer of Health bound to report any case of a dwelling unfit for human habitation, under Section 30 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890?

It appears to me that Section 45 is the only section referred to in Section 96 (16). As regards the second part of the question, the proper authority to report to is the County Council, which, in an undivided county, is the Local Authority under the Public Health Acts, and as such the Local Authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain Local Authorities throughout the country have, for a considerable time, been issuing notices to dealers and vendors in petroleum (grocers, &c), warning them that, under the Act of 1871, petroleum cannot be "kept otherwise than for private use, or for sale in certain small quantities," unless the dealer has obtained the necessary licence; and if he will explain what justification there is for such procedure, seeing that the Act of 1871 distinctly defines the petroleum to which it refers as that which, when tested in the prescribed manner, gives off an inflammable vapour below 73 degrees Fahr., and, therefore, does not apply to mineral lamp oils used for domestic purposes, which do not flash below the temperature specified?

No, Sir, I have no information as to the issue of such notices as the hon. Member mentions. If they have been issued they do not appear to be justified, in so far as they extend to petroleum to which the Acts do not apply. I may point out to the hon. Member that the Act of 1871, which he quotes, prescribed 100 degrees as the limit to which its provisions apply, and that it was by the Amending Act of 1879 that the present test and the limit of 73 degrees were established.

I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to the questions put to him on the subject of the Polynesian labour traffic, and also of the fact that I am precluded from moving the adjournment of the House owing to the notice placed on the Paper by an hon. Member on the other side, I shall raise the whole question of the renewal of Polynesian labour traffic on the next Vote on Account.

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now tell us when it is his intention to bring the Vote on Account before the House?

It will certainly have to be done before the Whitsuntide holidays, and I think it may be about the 25th or 26th of this month; but in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, I would not like to pledge myself to the precise date.

May I ask the First Lord how long the Vote will be taken for?

I cannot say; but I should think for a month or six weeks.

I should think so, too.

I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any representation has been made to the Government by the Irish National teachers in respect of the National Education Bill, and whether he can add anything to what he said last night with respect to the intention of the Government to proceed with it?

It will be introduced a week to-day.

I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to resume the discussion on the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill?

At the very earliest opportunity I can possibly find. I am very anxious to complete this stage of the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill, and I think we shall be able to get through it to-day. If that is so, then we shall proceed with the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill immediately.

I am very glad that the Government has responded to the appeal which we made on the last occasion. It would be impossible, I think, to frame a clause precisely on the same principle as an English clause, and I think the Lord Advocate has taken a judicious course in framing his clause on the lines, he has done. He has, I think, succeeded in accomplishing the substantial object by providing machinery by which the cost of registration will be largely reduced. He proposes that an officer should be appointed by the County Council on a salary, and fixes the registration at a moderate scale fee. I think that will go a very long way to accomplish the same object as has been accomplished in England by other means.

I beg to move the clause, with a small verbal Amendment. I understand the right hon. Gentleman accepts this clause, and I will not, therefore, detain the Committee.

I accept the clause.

The clause which I beg to propose increases the scope of the Bill without adding to the responsibility of the County Council. A good many landlords in years past have been in the habit of consolidating farms and leaving the small holdings to go into decay, or adding these small holdings to large farms. It is a mistaken policy, and now they are anxious to break up these large farms into small holdings, because they find it much easier to let small holdings than it is to let large farms. The object of this Clause is to facilitate that proposal by enabling the County Council to lend money to the tenant in cases where the landlord agrees with the tenant of the farm. I propose that the County Council shall lend the money on the security of the land, if the landlord gives a satisfactory tenure to the tenant. That tenure shall be a perpetual tenure. That is essential in all cases of small holdings, because without perpetual tenure I do not think the tenants will be stimulated to that improvement of their farms upon which the whole success of this experiment depends. My proposal, therefore, is that when the landlord creates a new holding and lets it to the tenant upon terms which are satisfactory to the County Council, and the main conditions of which are embodied in subsequent clauses standing in my name, the County Council shall be authorised to lend money for building sufficient and adequate houses on the small holdings. I hope the purpose I have in view will recommend itself to the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will be prepared to accept the clause, and look upon it as a valuable extension of the scope of the Bill.

I entirely sympathise with the objects the hon. Member has in view, but I cannot help thinking the clause is altogether superfluous. If the estate is unencumbered it will be perfectly simple for the owner to obtain money to effect the purpose without going to the County Council at all. But, on the other hand, if the estate is encumbered, then it seems to me that probably the security would be one that the County Council would not be well advised to invest their money in. Moreover, the hon. Member proposes that no loan shall be authorised unless the tenant is to have perpetuity of tenure. That would be importing into our practice in this country a form of tenure which is entirely novel, and to which on other grounds, independently altogether of the question we are now discussing, I should not be prepared to agree. I really do not think anything would be gained by the addition of this clause, and I am inclined to hope the hon. Member will not press it to a Division, for I should not be able, I am sorry to say, to accept it.

I do not see the hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Cust) in the House, but the clause standing in his name seems to me to be an extremely valuable clause, and I take the liberty of appropriating it and moving it in his absence. The clause proposes that these small holdings, instead of being real property descending to the heir, shall be personal property descending to the personal representative. There is one strong reason why that should be the law. These people who own small holdings have but a limited knowledge of real property, and very often do not make wills. If they do not the pro- perty will go to the heir, with the result that the widow will be left without any provision. If this clause passes the property will be personalty, and the widow will take a third. It seems to me right that the law should be altered in this way, and it seems to me, further, that it is not contrary to what we are familiar with on the subject, because when small holdings were created in Ireland under the system which obtains there, the small holdings were made personal property by the Government under the Act which they passed last year. It seems to me that what has been done in Ireland ought to be done in England too. Then, again, we have recently, in the Conveyancing Act of 1881, made trust estates devolve as personalty to the legal personal representatives; and certainly there is nothing anomalous or extraordinary in making land so devolve. Land which is held for a term of years devolves in this way at present. There are various other estates which from time to time have been changed from realty into personalty; and certainly we are not infringing any great principle, or making any general attack on the principle of primogeniture which might be unacceptable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, by making this small proposal.

I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for taking up this clause during my temporary absence. I do not wish at any length to take up the time of the Committee in supporting this clause, although it is one to which I myself, and many of my friends, attach very considerable importance. I am aware that it seems to some hon. Gentlemen, including, I fear, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, a novel and almost a startling proposal; but, as a matter of fact, it follows logically and almost necessarily upon the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman has already accepted. As he has already been good enough to accept a series of Registration Clauses, I trust to again hear that he may be willing to give his serious consideration to a clause which follows so naturally upon them. I am not aware that there is a single instance in the laws either of this country, of the Continent, or of the United States of America, where any system of land registration has not gone hand in hand with a clause of this nature; and as the right hon. Gentleman has been willing to adopt the enormous advantages of the system of compulsory registration—exceptional, I admit, to these statutory holdings and not applying to the whole land of the country—I hope to hear that he may be willing to make an exception for these small holdings in this case, for the whole case is exceptional throughout, and to give his favourable consideration to the present clause, and thus complete that land reform, at least with reference to small holdings, which he has already initiated, and confer still further advantages upon the class which he wishes to benefit. I admit that the clause is stated somewhat badly upon the Paper, but it is in no sense original. It has three direct precedents—if not actually legal precedents in form, at least precedents for the principle which it proposes. First we have the Land Registration Act of Ireland, which was passed last year, by which it is actually laid down that all land purchases under the Irish Land Act of 1891 shall be treated as personal property. Next we have the Land Transfer Bill, which has been introduced by the present Lord Chancellor in another place on more than one occasion, and which directs that the same principle which this clause embodies shall be applied to the whole land of the country. And, third, we have that which, if not a precedent, is at least a very close analogy—the system by which land lying in trust for sale in this country is for the whole of the period which may intervene before it is disposed of (and that period may be one of considerable length)—treated as personal property. I do not wish to detain the Committee by entering at any length into the various distinctions between real and personal property, and I can only lay before the Committee as shortly as possible what will be the practical results of the adoption of this clause. During the lifetime of the owner very little change will be felt, except possibly in additional facilities in the sale and transfer of his land; but it is in cases of death and succession, more especially in cases of intestate succession, that the full benefits will accrue. I desire to remove two possible causes of alarm to which this proposal has given rise. The first is that it would in any way alter the testamentary freedom of property holding, and the second is that it would interfere at all with the present financial arrangements or burdens which rest upon the land, whether Succession Duty, or rates, or whatever public burden it may be. Such charges would remain wholly untouched by this clause, and wholly unaffected. As to the other point, the testamentary freedom of the small holder, even under this clause he would be absolutely free to make what will he chooses for the disposition of his estate, as he is at the present moment. But it is in the case in which he makes no will and dies intestate that this important and valuable alteration in the law will be felt. What happens under the present state of the law? The heir-at-law may be either the eldest son, who may practically reduce his brothers and sisters to poverty, or he may be some distant male relative, who may reduce the widow to beggary. I will give an instance of what has occurred in this direction. It is the case of a labouring man and his wife. The wife unexpectedly inherited £700 or £800. The money was put into the bank. A will was made so that the money was left to the wife. Some years later the man and his wife purchased a plot of land and erected a house upon it, and in their ignorance they had no idea that the Law of Succession had changed. The husband died, and a nephew was declared heir-at-law, the widow being reduced to the position of a servant on the land which her money had purchased. Such a case as this is far from being an uncommon one—there are plenty of instances of the kind to be found up and down the country. There are two cases of a somewhat similar kind at the present time in my own Division of Lincolnshire. I would remind the Committee that although the sums of money in question in such cases are small they are relatively of importance to the persons concerned, and the amount is soon eaten up by litigation. What would be the result of the adoption of this Amendment by the Government? First, the entire property would pass at once into the hands of the administrator, who would be required to settle immediately, so far as the estate was concerned, all claims against it; secondly, instead of the son or a remote male relative succeeding to it, to the total exclusion of the widow or the family, the value of the estate would be divided amongst the family. It may be asked, Why make such an innovation? I would answer it is not an innovation in any sense, because it is based on the action of Parliament last year. Then, again, the holdings we are now dealing with are created solely by Statute; therefore this clause would upset no existing arrangement, and it would do wrong to no one. On the contrary, it would benefit those who most require to be benefited. It is with the object of providing a remedy for the distress, the serious injustice, and the gross grievances which exist that I bring forward this Amendment, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give it his full and careful consideration.

I am sure we are all much indebted to the hon. Member for having brought up this subject for our consideration. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give the clause his approval. I do not think it is much to ask from the Government, because, as to the principle of the clause, it has already been accepted as part of the Government programme. Not being a lawyer, I should hesitate a great deal in offering an opinion as to the meaning of legal phraseology. It may be that the wording of this clause is somewhat defective; but as to the object of the Mover we can have no doubt whatever. It is to prevent grievous injustice being inflicted by dividing, after a man's death, the property he leaves in a way which he himself, if alive, would not have approved. That principle has been accepted by the Government in a measure which they have proposed to the House. That measure was not passed, because of difference of opinion with regard to some of its provisions; but on this question of dealing with primogeniture there cannot be any difficulty whatever with regard to the principle. What I particularly want to impress upon the Committee is this—that whatever may be the feeling of hon. Members with regard to the general principle of primogeniture, there cannot be any possible objection to dealing with it as is proposed in this particular clause. In many cases the people whom you are going to put upon the land do not make their wills, or, if they do make them, they may possibly be found afterwards to be invalid, and their desire that the estate should be divided amongst those who are dearest to them is frustrated. The additional argument which has suggested itself to me is that in dealing with this land the work of the woman is undoubtedly of extreme importance, because if small holdings are successful it will be largely due to the wife's management of the poultry yard; and it will be an additional hardship if those who have contributed to the success of the holding should, on the death of the owner, find themselves deprived of any further benefit from it. I do not think that the question needs very much argument, and I sincerely trust the Government will see their wav to accept the Amendment.

I rise at this moment to say that I am particularly anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should give this Amendment his most careful consideration. He should know that there is on this side of the House a very strong feeling in favour of it. Those who buy their holdings will, no doubt, do so because they be- lieve that the property will afterwards be divided between their widows and their children. They would not like it to go to a distant relative. It is because I believe that great hardship will result if this Amendment is not adopted, that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to it.

I would not have spoken upon the question had I not represented an agricultural constituency. It is my earnest wish that this Bill should meet with unqualfied support. I have found in my constituency that the agricultural labourers have a horror of the word "primogeniture." It is-one which they cannot understand, and I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the Amendment his most favourable consideration.

I wish to say a few words on this very important Amendment. In making a great change, such as that contemplated by this Amendment, plenty of time should be given to consider it. No one wishes more than myself to see this Bill made a fair, full, and complete Bill; but this question is one which I think ought to-be dealt with in a measure by itself so as to give full opportunity for its discussion on each stage. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment pointed out very clearly what has been done in regard to registration in America and other countries that have adopted registration.

Well, Ireland does not come into the question, as Ireland is an exceptional case in the way it has been dealt with. Are you going to cast a slur on those you wish to see small holders of land by saying that with the education they have received they will not be able to make a will in conformity with their views and opinions, and thus do what they wish with their own? If education does not teach them this, the first thing they should learn as soon as they have got the property is how to make a will, so that they may be able to leave the land to whom they like. I should also like to ask, Is this property to remain under the law of personalty, or to again go under the law affecting realty in case pre-emption is granted and it is bought by the original owner? I think that is an important question, and deserves consideration. And then, with regard to the rates, my contention is that if it is to be made personal property it should be excused from the rates, as is the case with personal property. As to the law of primogeniture, I must say that I have never understood it is in such disrepute among the lower classes as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Baron Rothschild) appears to think. I have always been of opinion that they are anxious, if they have property, to leave it to their eldest sons, so that it may be handed down to their children. ("No, no!") Some hon. Gentleman says "No, no," but that has occurred in many cases I have known. But, be that as it may, I have never heard it said before, and if I had not known the opinions of the hon. Member who spoke, I should say he was one of those who are anxious to make an attack upon property.

If this Amendment is passed it will not prevent anyone making a will and leaving his property to his son.

Quite so, if he makes a will; but the object we have in view would be secured better without this proposal. I hope my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) will carefully consider the nature of this clause. It is an innovation to ask the Committee to make changes of such grave importance without giving the House an opportunity of discussing them most fully.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will see there is a strong disposition to view this clause favourably. It seems to me, however, that this proposition is mixed up with the question of pre-emption. The one depends considerably on the other, because if this is to be made a question of personal property the point that would arise is, what should be done if it is re-sold to the original owner? Will it then remain personal property, or become again real property? This is one of those matters which should be deferred for Report, as it affects others already left to that stage. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to take that course.

I frankly own that there is something extremely attractive to myself and others in the proposition of my hon. Friend, and it has been made not less attractive by the able and sympathetic speech in which he introduced it to the notice of the Committee. But there are some considerations of a practical character which I think deserve the attention of the House before we come to a decision. I think the argument adduced from the case of Ireland was in no way complete. The same principle, it is true, has been adopted in Irish legislation; but there was a reason for it in the case of Ireland that does not exist here. In Ireland there were a vast number of leasehold properties which by the legislation of some years ago were converted into ownerships, and the people who had been accustomed to treat these leasehold properties as personal property never became habituated to the change in the law, and continued to treat them as personal property, although they had become real property, and the law was, therefore, altered to meet their case. Then my hon. Friend pointed out a case in which he showed that great hardship had arisen to the family of a small owner of land, because of the ignorance of the law which existed at the time, and owing to which the whole of the property was divided amongst relations to whom it was, never intended to go. Well, I sympathise very much with the hardship in that particular case; but I do not think we should be wise to initiate legislation because of individual cases of hardship. But, Sir, I want the Committee to consider for a moment what are the practical objections to this proposal. It is one with which I myself have full and entire sympathy, and when the hon. Member appears to think that there is something of so novel and startling a character in this proposal that it would probably alarm me so much that I should not assent to it, I would remind him that there is nothing novel and startling in it at all. The precise principle has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government in the Land Transfer Bill which was introduced into the House of Lords; and, therefore, it is not because of anything novel and startling in the proposal that I oppose it. I see considerable practical difficulties in the way of carrying it out with regard to one particular class of landed proprietors, and one particular class alone. Now, take the case of a small holding that reverts possibly to its original owner and ceases to be held for that purpose. There you have the owner holding his land under two different titles—under one of which it is real property, and under the other personal property. My right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Barttelot) has also raised the difficulty with regard to the rates, and I am bound to say it seems to me to be a matter of great inconvenience that by passing a clause in Committee in the House of Commons one afternoon we are suddenly to create two classes of landed property in this country. I think these are considerations which ought to engage the attention of the Committee before we come to a decision, on this subject. It has been frequently pointed out in the course of the Debates on this Bill that one of the things we should, above all others, guard against with regard to these small holdings, is their possible sub-division in times to come. But surely, if we adopt this proposal, we shall be doing more to facilitate the sub-division of these holdings than anything else I can imagine. I hope, Sir, for the reasons I have stated—although I am entirely in sympathy with the object of the clause myself—that the Committee will come to the conclusion that it is too large a question to be hurriedly settled in an afternoon towards the close of the discussion on a Bill. Although there is no doubt that on the first convenient opportunity the present Government will endeavour to carry out the proposals they have made already on the subject, I strongly recommend the Committee on this occasion to abstain from supporting the proposal of the hon. Member.

It appears to me that the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has adduced against this proposal might have been fairly urged against the proposal in respect to small holdings, carried by his own Government under the Ashbourne Act. The main argument of the right hon. Gentleman has been that it is not desirable to create two classes of ownership of land under different forms of succession in the case of death. But that has been done in the case of the small holdings under the Ashbourne Act; and I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that not only did this apply to future purchasers under the Land Purchase Act of last Session, but also retrospectively to all land sold to tenants under the Ashbourne Act. Therefore, the strongest argument that can be conceived in favour of this proposal is that its principle is already embodied in Acts which the present Government have placed on the Statute Book. The right hon. Gentleman further said that it would make a great difficulty in the case of land being redeemed by its former owner under the clause which he has promised to bring up on the Report; but I think it would be quite possible to consider that question when the clause relating to the redemption of land by the former owner comes before the House. But let me point out that the land redeemed in that way would cease to be a small holding under this Bill, and consequently it would revert to the ordinary law of the land. For my own part, I venture most sincerely to hope still that the Government will take into consideration the strong feeling on the other side of the House in favour of this proposal and give way. My strong belief is that the disappearance of many of the small holders in the past has been largely due to the great complications attending transactions connected with the succession or transfer of land. If we had only at an earlier period adopted the general rule of applying the law of personal property to land—especially to small holdings—we should not have had to resort to this exceptional and artificial system of creating small holdings. Under these circumstances, I think there is a strong opinion on both sides of the House that the Government would do well to yield upon this point, and to promise that on the Report stage of the Bill they will bring up a clause for the pur- pose of carrying into effect the important suggestion of the hon. Member.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has said that the hardship which exists under the existing law is exceptional, and that on that account we ought not to make a change of the sort now proposed. So far from being exceptional, it is a hardship that is almost universal. It is a mute hardship, and for very natural reasons. People who suffer from it have not the opportunity or knowledge to bring the matter before public notice. The only people through whom that can be done are the local lawyers, and they, for very natural reasons, do not desire to see this change in the law. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's objection that we should have two classes of property, I will offer two remarks in answer. Surely it is unnecessary to talk about the danger of having two different classes of property when we are speaking of the English Land Laws. If we had a symmetrical Code, nicely cut and dried, then there would be some reason against making a disturbance; but while there exist such absurdities—and how can we expect labouring men to know them?—as a leasehold for life being personal property and a freehold for life real property, or that shares in a Water Company are personal property and shares in the New River Company are real property, it is unnecessary to discuss this question as if it would interfere with a delicate symmetry. Another point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me was that it would be an innovation far too great to introduce on a side issue. But this innovation is not one bit greater than the principle of registration which was swallowed whole by the Committee on Friday night, and which has opened up the way for the change now proposed. In every other country the two changes have gone hand in hand, and it does seem to be a case of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel for the Government to accept the principle of registration of land, and then absolutely refuse to take what follows. The question as to whether the acceptance of this proposal would make small holdings personal property in cases where the land is redeemed by its original owner might be held over until the Report stage; and if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that, I am sure we shall be willing to meet him. Otherwise, I think there is a strong feeling amongst hon. Members on this side, as well as on the other side, that we should take the sense of the House upon this clause.

If there be such a strong feeling on this, side of the House as a majority in, favour of this proposition I am the more proud to say that I do not share that opinion. This appears to me to be a much smaller question than it has been represented to be. It is a mere matter of how land shall devolve where the tenant dies intestate, but it has been stated that in the majority of instances he will die without a will. In that case, I believe one of the chief merits of this Small Holdings Bill will be gone if this proposition is accepted, because if the tenants die intestate there would then be a distribution of the land, or its price, amongst the personal representatives. To my mind, the great merit of this Bill as it now stands is that one person will succeed to the property, which would not happen if the property was sold whenever a tenant died intestate. This proposal is founded on what makes the worst kind of law; that is, on cases of individual hardship. To alter the law of England simply because a few people make bad wills is to make a great change for a very small reason. If it be true that the Government contemplate making a change one day in the devolution of real property, let it be on a general Bill. I would point out that the one kind of property where the rule of primogeniture is most useful is that of small estates. Everybody, except the Radical agitator, knows that the great estates of the country do not devolve because of the rules of primogeniture, but because of the law of settlement. The principle of primogeniture affects small estates, where there is no settlement, far more than large estates; and it is because I consider it far better that these small holdings should be year after year in the same family rather than be constantly thrown upon the market that I shall oppose this clause.

I have heard nothing in the course of the discussion which has removed my objections to the clause for the reasons I have already stated. At the same time, I recognise that there is a strong feeling on the part of the Committee, with which I sympathise; and if it will meet the views of hon. Members, I will undertake to re-consider the matter with a view, if possible, to deal with it on the Report.

I think we should quite understand the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. Re-considering a question may mean re-considering it with a view to its rejection as well as with a view to its acceptance. If the President of the Board of Agriculture says that he now accepts the principle that this property is to descend as personal property, and that all he wants is an opportunity of considering details, we need not prolong this discussion for another moment; but if he is not prepared to accept the principle, then this House should express an opinion upon it.

I said that I would re-consider this question with the view of dealing with it on the Report.

I think the Committee should know what that means.

I mean that we should postpone dealing with this question till the Report stage in order that I may examine into it. I might possibly on further consideration find it impossible to accept the proposal, and if so I should not consider myself pledged to go on with it. The House would then have the opportunity of discussing the subject on an Amendment moved by anybody else, but my intention is to re-consider this question with a view to accepting the principle of the proposal.

As I recognise the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this question, I will ask permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move that the following clause be inserted in the Bill:—

I shall be prepared to recommend my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) to adopt this clause, subject to further consideration before the Report stage, as to whether an alternative machinery could not be devised with the view of providing proper safeguards as to price.

I have now to move the following clause:—

The hon. and learned Gentleman has delivered a speech of a kind I have often heard. We are told that the position of the law is such that it is necessary that we should be shut out from something. It is unfortunate that the Lord Advocate is not here to give us the information, for I suppose the Attorney General will profess once more his entire ignorance as to whether this clause would apply to Scotland.

There is no doubt about the matter. The particular part of the Bill to which this new clause refers could not possibly apply to Scotland, because of the Act which has been mentioned.

On the last occasion the Attorney General said he did not know whether it would apply to Scotland or not.

Indeed, I said nothing of the kind.

It may be well worth the consideration of the Government whether in regard to entailed property it would not be well to include Scotland. With respect to this matter, the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) is under a habitual mistake. He forgets that the land which would be described as settled land in England is in Scotland governed by the law of entail, and there are ample provisions for giving facilities to deal with this land. I would press upon the President of the Board of Agriculture that he should communicate with the Lord Advocate on this matter.

I beg to move the following New Clause:—

If the contingency foreshadowed by the hon. Member were to arise, it would be wise to put in a clause like this; but I do not think it is likely to arise, nor do I Understand from the hon. Member that the clause is necessary. He says the rate able value should not be higher than that of other holders or farmers in the same neighbourhood; but I do not see how the fact that they are likely to be rented higher than their neighbours affects his argument. The rate able value is not estimated on the rental alone, but on the rental at which the land might reasonably be supposed to let from year to year. Therefore, I do not see that the clause would be necessary; but if, on examination, I find there is any reason for apprehending the danger which the hon. Member has foreshadowed, I shall be ready to deal with it in a manner which I hope will be satisfactory to the hon. Member.

A difficulty has already arisen on the Allotments Act. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has promised to examine into the matter, I will withdraw the clause

I beg to move, in page 5, after Clause 7, to insert the following clause:—

I beg to move the following clause:—

I have read the clause, but I am unable up to the present to see any advantage to be gained by adding it to the Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think I am discourteous in any way; but with every desire to ascertain in what way the Bill would be improved by the insertion of this clause, I confess I am unable to see it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in what sense he differentiates this present Bill from the Land Purchase Bill of last year, in which the Government accepted the Amendment as a great improvement on the Bill?

The circumstances are totally different. I have rather avoided framing this Bill on the lines of the Irish Act, the conditions of the two countries being so entirely different.

Will the Bill be printed as amended, and circulated? [Mr. CHAPLIN: Yes.] I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the skill and success with which he has piloted the Bill through Committee, and on the character of the Bill so far as it goes.

I beg to move, Sir, the addition of the following words at the end of the Amendment just made by the Lord Advocate:—

"So much of any public or local Act as requires the occupier or owner of any premises in Scotland to cause the footways and watercourses adjoining the premises to be swept and cleansed is hereby repealed."

This is a very important matter, because as the Bill stands the Sanitary Authorities will have the duty cast upon them of cleaning the pavements as well as the streets at the public expense all over Scotland, with the exception of five cities which have special Acts, and will not come under this Bill. In Glasgow the duty of cleaning the pavement will still fall upon the shopkeepers and occupiers of dwelling-houses. In London the duty of clearing the snow away has by a recent Act been thrown on the Public Authority. In these five cities, of which Glasgow is one, that duty will still devolve upon the shopkeepers and the occupiers of the ground floors of dwelling-houses, and they will have to act as scavengers; but whenever you cross a boundary, say to Govan, you will find that the work is done by the Local Authority. The duty of cleaning the pavements used to devolve on the occupiers in both England and Scotland, but in the recent Act the Government altered the law as regards London, and imposed the duty on the Public Authority at the expense of the general rate. The Lord Advocate in this Bill is doing exactly the same for all the burghs of Scotland except the five cities I have referred to. Now, in the case of these cities the shopkeepers and occupiers will still have to perform the duty of scavengers when a snowstorm comes, and the object of my Amendment is to provide that in these cities the duty shall devolve upon the Local Authorities, as in the burghs which come under this Bill. The shopkeepers have to pay heavily to the rates, and I do not see why they should have to clean the streets as well. In a matter of this kind we are not acting on behalf of the Town Councils of Glasgow and the other cities, but are speaking about a clause for the protection of the shopkeepers and occupiers of dwelling-houses, and we say that they are entitled to have this provision made as a matter of justice. As the Government have adopted the principle for London, they should be willing to extend it to these five cities of Scotland. The Government having decided that in all the burghs in Scotland which come under the Bill the duty of keeping the pavement clean shall devolve on the Sanitary authority, I maintain that there is an injustice in those cities where the duty is still made to devolve on the shopkeepers and occupiers of dwelling-houses. The refuse on the premises is taken away at the public expense, and why should not the snow and refuse outside on the street be taken away at the public expense? I cannot see why the Government should insist in taking a different view in reference to this matter with respect to Glasgow from what they take with respect to the rest of Scotland. I beg to move my Amendment.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will see why the Government cannot accept his Amendment, and why we could not interfere with the distinct understanding which we have arrived at with regard to the five great central towns of Scotland. We should simply destroy the Bill if we were to attempt in this or any other clause to bring any one of these great towns within the meshes of this measure. I hope the hon. Member will not persevere with his Amendment.

I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. Glasgow, if it pleases, can adopt this clause the day after this Bill becomes law; and I think it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Glasgow Corporation.

This clause relates to public health and cleansing, and if the Lord Advocate will look at Clause 316, he will find that most ample powers are given by it to the Local Authorities to make bye-laws for doing all the things mentioned in this clause. It empowers them to make bye-laws for removing the contents of ash-pits, dungsteads, drains, and all these other things mentioned in the clause. It seems to me that it would be much better and much more convenient to delete this clause in an Act of Parliament which will stereotype the law on this subject, and leave the matter to be determined by each Local Authority upon bye-laws; because you have another clause in the Bill which gives them the most ample powers to deal with these and other matters. By this Clause 116 you say that the Sanitary Authority may require the owner of a house in Scotland which shall be occupied for less than six months to whitewash "every part and pertinent" of it once a year; whereas by Clause 118 you make the most ample provision for dealing with the occupier of any dwelling-house which is in a filthy state. I venture to say that all you can ask is that it should be kept clean. I think that all these Clauses, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, and 122 might be omitted and that the matters to which they relate might much more reasonably be left to the operation of bye-laws.

I hope the hon. Member will not persevere in his line of criticism on this Bill. I have gone over the Bill very carefully since the last discussion in Committee, with the view of seeing whether I could not eliminate some of the clauses and leave the matters to which they relate to be dealt with by bye-laws, and these are not amongst the clauses which I thought it expedient so to treat. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member and other hon. Members will not follow this line of criticism.

I beg to move that the clause be omitted. By this clause the owners of "all private courts, yards, areas," and so forth, are obliged to keep them clean. In the first place, I think that it should be the duty of the Sanitary Authorities, and not of the owner, to see that this is done. In the second place, I do not see how the Burgh Authorities can enforce these regulations where there are a number of separate occupiers. I do not think there is any use in this clause at all, because what it aims at is already provided for under the Sanitary Laws. I hope the Lord Advocate will not consider it necessary to insert this clause, because I think it will be found to be unworkable.

In the first place, this clause is practically a reproduction of a previous clause. In the second place, the Sanitary Authorities have not, in my opinion, the power to deal with what is contemplated by the clause, because the Sanitary Authorities rather deal with a thing after it has become a nuisance. I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection to this clause.

I beg to move, in page 51, line 5, to leave out all after "pounds," to end of Clause.

May I ask whether this clause is in the Police Act?

The word were objected to at the previous stage of the Bill. That is the reason why the clause was postponed. It seems to me that this matter may safely be left either to the Common Law or to arrangement between the magistrate and the person who takes up or removes "the pavements, flags, or other materials." I think the words are unnecessary.

I beg to move on behalf of my hon. Friend and insert "owners." This clause as it stands would make it obligatory on the Burgh Commissioners to maintain for the future pavements or footways after they were once put in order to their satisfaction by the owners of lands or premises fronting or abutting on any street. The effect of this provision would be, in towns like Glasgow, to involve the Commissioners in considerable expense. The way that the Lord Advocate has put it is open to objection, for this clause as it stands takes the responsibility for the pavement, of whatever kind, off the owner, and he is thereafter relieved of all expense in connection with it. I think the Lord Advocate will see that that is a very important matter. The Commissioners should not be bound to take up the burden of keeping the pavement in repair unless they also have the power of insisting that a pavement of a permanent character should be put down. This is how they have it in Glasgow. I move the Amendment.

If his clause raised the question spoken to by the hon. Member it would indeed be important, but the hon. Member's "remarks are utterly wide of the object of the clause. It is not the case that the clause provides that the Commissioners are to take over the pavement, and to thereafter relieve the owner of all expense. It puts it in the discretion of the Commissioners to do so in the first instance; and, in the second place, that discretion is to be exercised in a way and manner which shall be determined. Those two restrictions make the hon. Member's remarks utterly inapplicable. This is a matter which was discussed in Committee at an earlier stage of the Bill, and various hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House voted for it. Under the law as it now stands the Commissioners cannot take over the footways of a town unless they take over the footways of the whole town. This virtually enables them to do that piecemeal, and street by street. I hope the hon. Member will not divide the Committee on this point.

This clause works very well in practice, and I think the difficulties which my hon. Friend has alluded to only exist in his imagination.

There is no question of the meaning of the clause. The pavement required might be mere causeway foot-paving, and the owner having provided that in terms of the requisition of the Local Authority, then, in the words of the clause, "The Commissioners shall thereafter, from time to time, repair and uphold such footways." That is to say, if an Order is passed on the part of the Commissioners that such pavement is to be made, thereafter the Commissioners are precluded from making any further Order, and in all future time the pavement is to be upheld by the Commissioners.

I have put down two Amendments, at the request of the Town Council of Dumfries, with this object. A considerable sum—I believe £2,000—has been spent on slaughter houses in Dumfries under the two miles' protection of the present law, but the effect of this Bill will be to take away that protection after the money has been spent. I believe the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland will propose other words, and I therefore do not wish to insist upon any Amendments. I shall, before Report, have an opportunity of seeing the framework of the amended clause, and of considering whether it meets our case.

It has been agreed to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs (Mr. Shiress Will), slightly modified, so that it may read as follows:—

Page 101, line 26, after "offence," insert—"And to prevent evasion of the use of such slaughterhouses, all persons who shall, after such slaughterhouses are provided, bring within the boundaries of the burgh, for sale or consumption therein, the carcass or part of a carcass of any cattle or beast slaughtered within the distance of two miles beyond such boundaries elsewhere than in slaughterhouses provided or duly licensed in pursuance of any Act of Parliament shall, on bringing such carcass or part of a carcass within the said boundaries, be liable in payment to the commissioners of the amount of the rates or sums then being levied for cattle or beasts slaughtered in such slaughterhouses provided by them, provided that where before the passing of this Act any burgh shall have erected slaughterhouses, no other slaughterhouse shall be erected within a distance of two miles from the existing boundaries of such burgh, unless either it is erected with the consent of the commissioners of such burgh, or is situated within the area of another burgh."

I hope the Committee will consider well before they introduce this clause into the Bill, as it would have the effect of extending the jurisdiction of the burgh. The question has been discussed before, and the proposal has been rejected as placing a tax on an article of food, and as, therefore, being opposed to public policy.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has misapprehended the effect of the clause. It will not in any way extend the jurisdiction of the burgh, and it will not have the effect of checking the meat supply.

This is a matter which requires very careful consideration, and the Committee should have further information as to the effect of the clause before deciding the question.

I cannot help thinking that this question is occupying a great deal of time unnecessarily. It is necessary, of course, to take every precaution to secure the wholesomeness of meat; but, at the same time, the question of jurisdiction has to be considered.

I certainly object to this protection of the burgh as regards the use of slaughterhouses.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider this question, especially as to the sanitary enactments with reference to slaughterhouses.

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and my object in doing so is to prevent friction between the Local Authorities.

It really does not seem to me to be a matter of much importance either one way or the other.

I merely wish to point out to the Lord Advocate that he is asking to confer power on the Commissioners to make these bye-laws for all purposes. In Section 117, however, he has laid down how these duties should be performed; but they might make bye-laws which would entirely alter the operation of this section.

I wish to point out that Clause 119 places upon the occupier the duty of cleaning out the areas. This bye-law seems to give power to the Commissioners to put that duty upon the owners. I do not object to that in the least, but I want to know how these two parts of the Bill are reconciled.

No bye-law will be able to place the duty upon any other shoulders than those on whom it now rests.

This is a clause which fixes the incidence of taxation of the boroughs entirely upon the occupier—one of the most important questions raised on this Bill. The rates to be paid for are the police, drainage, public health, and the maintenance of the streets. I am aware that under the existing Act the taxes have been laid upon the occupier; but since that Act was passed in 1862, this House has considered the incidence of such taxation; and if we compare the maintenance of streets in boroughs with those in the counties we find that as far back as 1878 the Government provided for taxation between the owners and the occupiers. The County Government Act goes still further; practically, the whole of the Police Tax is laid upon the owners, and other taxes are divided between the owners and occupiers. I think this is a fitting opportunity to consider the subject, and, therefore, I submit the Amendment standing in my name. This Bill proposes future taxation of the boroughs, and I think the subject ought to be dealt with as in the recent Acts referring to Scotland, and according to the principle adopted by the House—a division between owners and occupiers.

It would, I think, be very unfortunate in the interests of the progress of this measure if we were to enter into the question of, the incidence of taxation in boroughs. That is a question which ought not to be dealt with in a Bill consolidating the police law. This clause simply continues the system which has been in vogue many years in Scotland; and the analogies which the hon. Member drew do not hold, because even if we take the Local Government Act the division of certain rates between the owners and the occupiers was simply for the purpose of bringing in the occupiers in view of the increased representation they were obtaining under that Act. I have never heard the present practice called in question. The clause deals only with the assessment for general purposes, and its justification is that it preserves the status quo.

The right hon. Gentleman is scarcely accurate. The Bill does make considerable change, and that in the direction of relieving the owner of his liability. My hon. Friend the Mover of this Amendment (Mr. Barclay), and the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Rowlands), when the Bill was before the Committee were in favour of placing on the occupiers this burden of maintaining the pavements, and they did so deeming it better, instead of a two penny assessment, to place the pavement under the control of the Commissioners, and to compel the owners to pay half of the rate. If the Government are determined that the burden which has been borne by the landlords shall be transferred to the community, then the landlords should bear a portion of it. The Amendment of the hon. Member goes back to the condition of things before 1862. The Act of that year was hurried through the House very much as this is being hurried through; pressure was brought to bear, and the whole question was not fully considered. By that Act the whole burden was transferred from owners to occupiers, and very unfairly, I think, and that is what we are repealing. So far as any change was made by the Local Government Act, it was to transfer burdens to the occupiers. The rate was consolidated and paid a moiety by each owner and occupier, though until then it had been borne entirely by owners. It is only right that owners should bear their fair share, and we shall then have uniformity of rating throughout Scotland. At the present time the owner pays half of the poor rate and half of the education rate, and all we desire is that he should pay half of the police rate, the improvements, the lighting, and the general expenditure, which is defrayed from the assessment. It is only fair, now that you are placing an extra burden upon the occupier until now borne entirely by the owner that the owner should in this case bear a fair share of it. I have much pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment. Let us have uniformity of assessment.

I am not much impressed with the value of the Bill. It is badly drafted, and the substance is not much better than the form. But now we come to a matter of real and serious practical importance, the division of rates between occupier and owner, and if the result of our discussion were to imperil or defeat the Bill it would be a real benefit to the people of Scotland. It would be disastrous if we in 1892 were to give the slightest sanction to this law passed in 1862. Several things have happened since that date. In 1867 the suffrage was extended to workmen in towns, and in 1885 it was extended to workmen in the counties; and are we to be told in 1892 that those who had no voice in the making of this law of 1862 are to be equally ignored to-day as if they had no more voice now? Does anyone suppose for a moment that if in 1862 workmen had had the franchise they would have submitted to the process which has since gone on, the removal of these ancient burdens from the landlords to the shoulders of the occupiers? What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us last night? I listened to a very interesting discussion between the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) on political economy, and the right hon. Gentleman on this side professed himself a disciple of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a very edifying talk, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House that all the rates in towns which were paid by the occupiers came out of the pockets of the occupiers, and were not a burden on owners. Now, I am not going to discuss that question on its merits, or to say whether I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on it or not; but I take the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government on their own ground occupied last night, that all these local rates payable by the owners are taken out of the pockets of the occupiers, and I say we live in a time when the working classes are not disposed to agree that the whole burden of these rates should fall on their shoulders. They are disposed to demand that as in the case of the poor rate and education rate, so in this rate, to the extent of half, it should be borne by the proprietors. Can the Govern- ment show us any reason why occupiers should bear the whole cost in burghs? This is a matter of infinitely greater importance than all the other questions raised by this so-called Consolidation Bill, and I venture to think that unless the Government will meet us on this point it would be wise policy on our part to take care not to give fresh sanction in a new enactment in these days to a principle acknowledged now to be unjust towards a large portion of the community.

This is a very important question of principle, and we ought not to dispose of it immediately. It is worthy of the consideration we can give to it between now and our next sitting on the Bill. The Lord Advocate says the Bill does not afford the proper opportunity for dealing with the question, but that it should be dealt with as part of the general incidence of taxation; but I say this is precisely the time for dealing with it when we are dealing with the incidence of local taxation for the whole of the burghs of Scotland with five exceptions. I see no prospect of any other opportunity.

In rising to move the Motion on this subject, in which I ask the House to assent to an inquiry, it is hardly necessary for me to insist on the food supply of the country being a matter of supreme importance. Taking the Returns of our fish supply in the years from 1886 to 1891, I find there has been a steady decline in the quantity from 6,412,000 cwts. in 1886 to 5,966,000 cwts. in 1891, a decrease of nearly half a million cwts. in six years—a serious falling off in a source of food supply at a time when the population of the country is increasing, and the purchasing power of the people at a still greater ratio; and surely it is time that such an inquiry as I suggest should be instituted. Probably the greatest falling off in the supply has been on the North-West coast, where formerly the fishermen had a prosperous occupation, finding markets for their fish in Lancashire, Cheshire, and Glamorganshire. The Railway Companies are anxious to increase the traffic, and though there have been complaints of the rates of transit being excessive, the Cambrian and other lines are now doing all in their power to resuscitate this important branch of their business. In the United States, in Canada, and in Continental countries much has been done in consequence of attention being paid to pisciculture, and this may also be said of Scotland and Ireland and some parts of England. Indeed, it would seem that Scotland and Ireland have but to ask for inquiries of this character and the request is granted as a matter of course. Formerly large quantities of oysters were found off the coast near Port Madoc and Pwllheli, and fish of all kinds rewarded the fisherman's industry, but I think that Aberdovey is now the only Welsh port which does not show a considerable falling off in the amount of fish landed. When the tourist season is over the Welsh sea-coast towns offer little occupation to the working population, and any means of reviving the fishing industry would result in the greatest benefit to the inhabitants. Professor Huxley, no mean authority in such matters, has stated that an acre of good fishing ground will produce in a week as much food as an acre of the best land will produce in a year. If that be true, and coming from such an authority I do not know why we should doubt it, the importance of reviving the Welsh industry is apparent. The first requirement is harbour accommodation, with refuge from storms; next some instruction and directions on scientific principles are required, for I fear with the decay of the fisheries our fishermen are somewhat behind the times; and the pollution of rivers needs inquiry, mining operations in Wales, especially lead mining, having done much harm to the fish. On these points, together with the means of cheap and quick transit for the fish from the port of landing, inquiry would I feel sure be followed with useful results, and therefore I make my Motion.

In seconding the Motion there is no occasion for me to dwell upon the importance of this industry, whether in regard to the employment of our sea coast population or as furnishing a food supply to the whole community, an important consideration in these times of hostile foreign tariffs. We are endeavouring to restore agricultural prosperity; and scarcely less in importance is it to restore the fishermen to our fishing grounds than our labourers to the soil. Without doubt, in recent years our fishing industry has grievously declined from causes, some purely local, others general in character. Probably all countries have suffered more or less in this respect from general causes, but this country is alone in not making strenuous efforts to remedy the evils. My hon. Friend has referred especially to Wales, and to Wales my references will chiefly be as being that part of the subject with which I am best acquainted. In Cardigan Bay, for instance, there is a serious falling off in the fish landings. Taking the port of Pwllheli alone, I find from Returns that the amount landed last year was 132 tons as compared with 296 tons six years ago. The proprietors of a very ably conducted paper, the Cambrian News, a short time since instituted an inquiry into the state of the fishing industry in Wales, and it was found that while in nearly all the ports there was a very considerable falling off in the amount of the fish landed, in some ports the industry was practically dead. More especially has there been a decline in the oyster fisheries. There is then a condition of things to amply justify an inquiry into the causes and the remedies to be applied. The first point that demands attention is the want of proper harbour accommodation, and this has been so often urged that I am sure the President of the Board of Trade must be fully sensible of its importance. It is obvious that fishing boats cannot lie by their nets for any length of time, unless the fishermen have the security of refuge in stormy weather; and on the other hand, a good catch of fish is valueless unless there is means of landing and quick transit to market. The best port in Cardigan Bay, Pwllheli, has but its natural accommodation, unimproved by any artificial means. We want a port which boats can enter at all states of the tide and in all weathers, so that advantage may be taken of the train service, which is not frequent in a thinly populated country. Bearing on this question of harbour accommodation there was an inquiry held by a Committee of the House of Commons some years ago—in 1883; but unfortunately no evidence was taken in reference to Cardigan Bay and many other localities where the fishing industry is or was carried on. The inquiry, appears to have been of a very general character—it was not so thorough as the importance of the subject demanded, due I suppose to the fact that the Committee was appointed very late in the Session. The late Sir John Coode, an acknowledged authority, gave evidence before that Committee on the relations between harbour accommodation and the prosperity of the fishing industry. He advocated the construction of harbours with a depth of twelve to fifteen feet of water at low spring tides for the accommodation of fishing vessels and the class of vessels unable to keep the sea in rough weather, and he showed how often the prospect of good fishing was lost because the men dared not venture out when the appearance of the weather was threatening, knowing they had no port under their lee upon which they could rely as being accessible at any time. The most successful fishing is frequently carried on when the weather is unsettled. The opinion of so high an authority deserves attention, and I find it supported by the evidence of Mr. Young, at that time Inspector of Scotch Fisheries, who pointed out how, after improvements were made in the harbours at Peterhead and Fraserburgh, the fishing industry in the localities immensely increased. There was another witness, Mr. Stevenson, Vice-President of the Royal Society, Edinburgh, who expressed an opinion that with judicious additions to the harbour accommodation on the Scotch coasts the fishing trade might be increased to an illimitable extent. This opinion has been confirmed by other authorities, and there is practical experience that with increase of harbour accommodation there has been development of the fishing industry. Now in Cardigan Bay there are most valuable fishing grounds, but from end to end of the Bay there is not a port which fulfils any of the conditions laid down by Sir John Goode—secure shelter from storms, good holding ground, and easy access at all states of the tide or the weather. It may be said that the decrease in the trade cannot be due to the want of harbour accommodation altogether, inasmuch as there was no better accommodation years ago when the trade was better. But conditions have changed. The markets cannot be found in the vicinity of the ports, the fish have to be sent to the great inland centres of population; and to whatever cause it may be due, it is a fact that fishing that formerly could be successfully conducted within a few miles of the shore, has now to be carried on farther out at sea. In Scotland, too, they complain that they have not sufficient harbour accommodation; and, in fact, the Fishery Board in their last Report point out that there are many points on the Scotch Coast where harbours are required, and that they have not adequate funds at their disposal. It may be mentioned, however, that in 1889 they were enabled to spend something like £10,000 in subsidising the making of proper harbours, and that during the eighty years the Act has been in force £250,000 of Imperial money has been spent upon harbours in Scotland. During the whole of that period, however, not one penny has been spent on fishing harbours in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, in replying to me, alluded to Holyhead and Milford. I do not know whether we can properly call them fishery harbours, because they do not afford easy access to the fishing grounds. That the whole of the local fishing during the year only amount to 87 tons is undoubtedly owing to the circumstance that Holyhead is not located near the fishing ground, and I think the same may be said of Milford. In Ireland, too, grants have been made from time to time. An Act was passed to devote the sum of £250,000 out of the Irish Church Fund for the purpose of making harbours along the Irish Coast. Thus, while in Scotland and Ireland the provision of proper accommodation as essential to the development of the fishing industry has been recognised, nothing has been done as regards the English and Welsh Coasts for the express purpose of developing the fisheries; and, speaking of Cardigan Bay, I can say with the utmost confidence that nothing has been spent there by the Government. The second point complained of is the want of proper boats and tackle. That something should be done in this respect is more essential than formerly, owing to the distance from the shore at which the fish are taken. I find that in Scotland the biggest hauls are made thirty or forty miles away. The boats in use in Cardigan Bay are not fit to travel such a distance from the shore. In that bay the average tonnage of the boats is from three to seven tons, and in the largest port the average is something like eleven tons, as against the Scotch average for last year of 29½ tons. I think it was Mr. Grady who, in giving evidence before the Irish Fishery Commissioners, valued the boats engaged in the Irish herring fisheries at £1,000 to £1,100—an amount the boats in Cardigan Bay do not approach. It may be asked why the fishermen do not supply themselves with proper boats and appliances. The answer to that query is that they lack capital for the purpose, and during the inquiry instituted by the Commissioners it was discovered that to supply the fishermen with boats and gear had, as an investment, always proved a failure. In Scotland, under the Crofters Act, the Treasury was empowered to grant loans for this purpose, and the same thing has been done in Ireland. I do not, however, believe in these loans, for two reasons. One is that they are demoralising, and the other is that there is no guarantee that the proper boats will be purchased. Then, again, in the North of Scotland the instalments have not been regularly paid. One-half of the instalments are in arrears, and the Fishery Board report that there is no chance of recovery. I suggest, however, that an inquiry should be instituted as to the means of supplying fishermen with proper appliances, and, as a mere hint, that the Fishery Boards might be empowered to buy boats and let them out on hire by the year. I simply submit the matter as a proper subject for inquiry. Another matter which I think might be very properly investigated is the subject of fish culture. I find that almost every other country has done something in this direction. In Scotland there has been experimenting. The United States has taken the question into consideration; hatcheries have been placed at various parts of the coast, and in Massachussetts it is stated that the fishermen ascribe the phenomenal quantity of fish to the efforts of the Fishery Commission in relation to artificial production. Last year five hundred millions of eggs were distributed. Germany, too, has done something, with very beneficial results, and in Newfoundland the Commissioners report that the highest authorities are becoming more and more unanimous as to the desirability of the artificial production of cod. Norway has not been neglectful, and in South Holland as many as three millions of French oysters have been laid down on the banks. Formerly Cardigan Bay afforded very prolific oyster fishing. Now the beds have been destroyed, and no amount of protection will restore this branch to its old prosperity. All that can be done is to follow the example of Holland, Newfoundland, the United States, and France, by laying down oysters at such parts of the coast as are adapted for the cultivation of oysters. That, too, is a fitting subject for inquiry. I come now to the last part of the Resolution—that it is necessary to confer further powers on the Fisheries Board. At the present moment they have simply powers of restriction as to fishing in certain waters and as to modes of fishing; but they can do nothing in the way of developing the culture. In the interest of the restoration of the prosperity of our fisheries, I consider it essential that their powers should be enlarged. Scientific investigation, for instance, and other elements all tending to the development of our fisheries, might be adopted. These are points I merely suggest; but there can be no question as to the enormous importance of reestablishing and developing the fisheries of this country, and as to the necessity of England not being behind in the attention paid to this subject. I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

In rising to support the Motion, my only difficulty is as to what the Government can possibly say against it. I represent a county which is especially interested. It is a long, narrow county, with a great extent of sea-board, and its fishing industry has been in a very much more flourishing condition than at present. It is said that the inhabitants themselves ought to be more alive to the well-being of this industry, but that alone, even assuming it to be true, does not seem to me to be an answer to our demand that the Government should grant this inquiry—that they should furnish us with means of knowing how far any neglect to avail themselves of natural resources or to acquire proper appliances is to blame, or how far the industry is dependent on the results of scientific research and upon the bestowal of Governmental aid. It is undisputed that the industry has been in a much more flourishing condition than it is now, and that alone is a fit subject for inquiry. It is also undisputed that there is no harbour accommodation, properly so called, from one end of Cardigan Bay to the other, and therefore the best method of remedying this defect is a legitimate subject for inquiry. I do not suppose that anyone will contend that these harbours are not capable of being rendered valuable adjuncts if they are only made to insure easiness of access, and shelter, and are given the other requirements necessary to the efficiency of the fishing industry. Moreover, the important question of fish culture is one that demands and ought to receive the attention of the Government. The same state of things exists pretty much in Pembrokeshire, where there is now comparatively little fishing. It might be within the province of those who conduct the inquiry to see how far that traffic has been retarded and kept back by the railway arrangements in the county. And in dealing with the county of Pembroke I should mention the oyster industry, to which allusion has been made. In the River Cleddau there was formerly a very important bed and an abundant supply of oysters, which were quite as good as the celebrated native or Whitstable oyster. These beds have been very unproductive of late; it may be from causes which the Government are powerless to rectify; but that is no reason why the Government should decline to grant an inquiry. One very extraordinary fact, which I do not know how the President of the Board of Trade will explain, is that whereas grants, in the shape of loans, have been made to other parts of the United Kingdom, at all events to Scotland and Ireland, no grant has been made to Wales. Wales is a very poor country, and, with the exception of certain districts, has no industry except that of agriculture; and this is, to my mind, an additional reason why the Government should look into this fishing industry, which has been more flourishing, and which, properly looked after, is capable of finding employment for people who have never received any encouragement from the powers that be. The demand we make is, I contend, a reasonable one, and I am anxious to hear what the President of the Board of Trade can urge against it. The Government have considered the principle that the question of harbour accommodation and the fishing industry are matters to be looked into and assisted in other parts of the United Kingdom, and Wales is as poor as any other part of the Kingdom, and might as properly receive attention and assistance. I maintain that in the present state of the food supply, and in the face of a rapidly-increasing population, and thy danger of the lack of an ordinary supply in certain contingencies in a countre like ours, it becomes more imperative and desirable that this matter should be looked into, and I urge upon the Government to accede to this very reasonable request. It is not as if we brought up a proposal crowded with detail to which the Government might object, or which they would be justified in criticising. We only ask that a matter which they have confessed is of the greatest importance should be made the subject of inquiry, and that a stimulus may be applied to an industry which was once flourishing, but is now, more or less, in a state of decay.

Hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate are more or less connected with the West Coast of England, and the House would get a manifestly incomplete view of the situation if the East Coast were not represented. It is a striking circumstance that the returns of the amount of fish brought into the ports of the three Kingdoms during the past three years show a decrease to the enormous extent of something like 800,000 cwts.; but there is also this striking fact—that in spite of that enormous decrease in quantity the value of the diminished supply was something like one million higher than the value of the larger supply we had three years ago. This, to my mind, shows conclusively that the supply has by no means kept pace with the demand, and when we reflect that this decreased supply is in spite of the extension of steam power, improved appliances, and larger vessels, it is clear that the subject is a most serious one. Of this decrease of 800,000 cwts. for the three Kingdoms, 600,000 cwts. represents the decrease on the East Coast alone, and that opens a very serious consideration. The President of the Board of Trade must be aware of the diminished quantity of fish from the North Sea, not only by complaints from the East Coast ports, but from the countries on the other side. One thing seems to me to be very clear—that all round the three Kingdoms there is a diminished supply of fish in the inshore waters. This has brought about a very serious condition of things on many parts of our coast, because sea-fishing is the only industry that is possible to many men living in the villages and some of the smaller towns, and the decay of the industry has brought privation and distress upon those engaged in it. It is very difficult for these men who have been trained to a seafaring life to take to other occupations in middle age, and this fact adds to the distress and privation. We were very largely indebted to the President of the Board of Trade for the Act which established Sea Fisheries Committees, and perhaps he may say that it is rather soon to have an inquiry which will touch those Committees. But the Act has been in existence four years, and some of the Committees have been at work two years, and in that time some things must have been cleared up and others brought forward supplying reasons for further powers being given to these Committees. On the North East Coast there is a strong feeling that the beneficial effects of the Act of 1888 will be very largely lost unless some means are found for enabling the practical fishermen appointed by the Board of Trade to attend the Committees. Whilst the important question of trawling was under discussion they did attend, but since then they have not felt justified in making the sacrifices which attending the meetings involved, for not only did their absence from work make a considerable difference in their income, but the travelling and other necessary expenses materially increased their expenditure. Unless we can secure this, the hopes of the fishermen of the utility of these Committees will be disappointed, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give us some assurances on that matter. Further, I may point out that the duties of those Committees are largely restricted to the regulation of the fisheries. They have no power to take in hand a decaying industry and put it on a better and firmer foundation. The question of bait has also been mentioned, and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the increasing difficulty which the fishermen experience in getting mussels. They have to get them from a distance, and sometimes have to pay as much as £2 or £3 for a week's bait, and then suppose, in consequence of the weather or any other cause, they are prevented from going out the whole of that expenditure is lost. This subject has already received attention, and I put it to the President of the Board of Trade that our fishermen should not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with their Scotch brethren in the facilities which are given to them in this direction. We are not likely to see any considerable revival of the mussel beds nor of the oyster beds until the Fishing Committees can do something more than merely regulate the fisheries. They ought surely to be able raise money to take up matters of this kind and so develop the fisheries. In France the experiment with the mussel beds has been remarkably successful, and it seems to me that there is nothing to hinder the same thing being done along our coasts. Another point to which I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is that the Fisheries Commission recommended the appointment of a Fisheries Board in England to make scientific experiments in the same way as is done by the Scotch Fishery Board.