I desire to say a word or two upon this Bill and the long suspension of the undertaking of the works sanctioned. I happen to have personal knowledge of the injury that has been done, and I may say at once that though I am a resident in the neighbourhood of Regent's Park, and on the line of the proposed railway, I have personally no interest in the matter. I am but a temporary dweller there, and can leave the district at any time without any pecuniary loss, and no personal considerations influence me. But I do know, from personal observation and inquiry, that the land in the district has been broken up into small ownerships, and the owners are not able or willing to incur the very heavy expenses that attend representation before a Parliamentary Committee. I know that our Select Committees do their work in a thoroughly judicial manner, and endeavour to administer justice all round; but there are cases that do not, and cannot, come before them, and I think such cases of hardships may very fairly, in relation to a Bill of this kind, be brought before the House. In 1882 this Bill was first obtained—ten years ago—and the time wherein to construct the line has been lengthened from period to period, and now it is still proposed to extend the time for another year. If we were quite certain that work would be begun in 1893, I should have little to say on the subject; but, so far as I can learn, there is no reason to suppose that work will actually be carried on when this Bill is passed. Meantime, houses remain unoccupied owing to the uncertainty as to what is going to be done, and owners are put to great loss, and, of course, when the property is taken, only the present value or compulsory purchase terms will be awarded. It is a hardship upon these owners, and I earnestly hope that if this Bill goes forward the promoters will favourably consider the claims of these owners. This is only one case out of many enterprises continually undertaken and remaining suspended from year to year, to the detriment of property in the neighbourhood. Surely it is not too much to expect that when promoters undertake a railway scheme such as this, they should count the cost beforehand and estimate the probabilities of raising their capital, not rushing hastily into a project to the great injury of property that may be affected. If completed I have no doubt this railway would be a beneficent work, though I am sorry to say it will greatly interfere with the pleasant aspect of one of our most agreeable parks on the north side of London, Regent's Park. But no doubt it will be a useful line, and will be of great public convenience; I allow all that. Still, I think we ought to have some explanation of this very long delay in undertaking the work, and some assurance that if we suspend the Standing Orders to facilitate the progress of this Bill we shall not be met with a similar demand next year.

I will not detain the House, and only interpose to correct a statement which appeared in one of the morning papers to the effect that I yesterday opposed this Bill and caused this Motion to be deferred to to-day. That is absolutely incorrect. I had no intention of opposing the Bill, and could not have done so, for I was not in the House when the Motion was made. Personally I am inclined to support the Bill, and the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London, of which body I am a member, are supporters of the Bill.

In reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), I may say that of the ten thousand small owners who are more or less interested in this railway, and who have all had the opportunity of petitioning against it, not one has done so, and this, I think, shows that the feeling of owners of property is in favour of the proposal. As to the prospect of the undertaking being carried through, I am informed that directly the capital is obtained work will commence.

I took some interest in the Bill when it was before the House on previous occasions, and I take an interest in it still. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester has not apparently been informed as to the chief causes of the delay which has occurred, and the abandonment of a portion of the scheme, which was to have been undertaken by the Great Northern Company and another Railway Company. This has necessitated the Bill coming again before a Committee, and the Committee were satisfied with the explanations given; and I am assured that the promoters have every belief that the line will soon be completed, the great difficulty being removed by the subsidiary lines, the construction of which would have been very costly, having been abandoned with the object of bringing the capital of the company down to a manageable amount. The length of the line will be thirteen miles, and I hope this will be completed; for, judging of the Bill as it is, with arrangements for cheap trains, there can be no question it would be a great boon to our working class population in London.

No doubt it is an inconvenient thing to have a great project like this hanging up for ten years, as the hon. Member for Leicester has said. I hope, however, without being too sanguine, that the difficulties may soon be removed. In its original conception the project was a vast one, and required a very large amount of capital to carry out. Hence it was that from time to time the promoters had to come to Parliament for a renewal of their powers. They are now in a position to say that with the abandonment of two railways, and a portion of a railway authorised by the Act of 1882, a very costly part of the scheme, the release of so much of the capital as these portions of the scheme involved, the reduction of the capital to be raised, and the payment of interest at the rate of three instead of four per cent., there is every prospect of the work going forward. The financial proposals have been examined and approved, and the Board of Trade make no objection to the abandonment of the subsidiary lines.

The several Motions I have to move have reference to the same object. It is well known that a copy of every Bill, in the subject - matter of which the Local Government Board is in any way concerned, must be lodged with that Department. The Board of Agriculture is a Department of recent creation, and is naturally interested in questions relating to the drainage and improvement of land, the creation and regulation of markets for the sale of cattle, and other matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Department; and the Board desire that a copy of every Local Bill having relation to such matters shall be lodged at the office. The Amendments of the Standing Orders I propose are designed to carry that desire into effect.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he would explain why, although a siding has been completed on the Victoria Wharf since the 31st March last, for which money was taken in the Army Estimates, the Wicklow Militia were brought by train, on the 24th May, past Kingstown, a distance of seven miles, to Amiens Street, Dublin, and from that station were marched, and their baggage carried down, to the North Wall Extension, a distance of about a mile; and whether, when this regiment returns to Ireland, it is intended to land them at Kingstown?

Had the Wicklow Artillery been conveyed from Dublin in a Government troopship the Victoria Wharf would probably have been used. No troopship was available, however, and passage was taken by the Admiralty in a hired steamer, which was berthed by the Local Harbour Authorities at North Wall. On its return it is intended that the regiment shall proceed direct to Wicklow.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has received any communications from the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce on the subject of a rifle range at Blackrock, Dundalk; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in connection with the matter?

NO communication has been received from the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce relative to a rifle range at Blackrock, Dundalk.

The Red Barnes Range?

No; and there is no intention of making any change.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ascertain from the Lord Chancellor if the Lord Chancellor received any communication other than that from the Mayor and Aldermen of the City and County of the City of Lichfield upon the subject of appointing additional Magistrates for the City and County of the City of Lichfield, between 30th December, 1890, and 8th June, 1892; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of that communication, and from whom the communication was received?

The Lord Chancellor has, no doubt, received a great many communications in respect to the appointment of additional Magistrates for Lichfield, to which the hon. Member refers, as he does constantly in respect of the other appointments which it is his duty to make, but it has always been the practice, from which he sees no reason to depart, to treat such communications as confidential.

The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat vague; can he not say whether the Lord Chancellor has received any communication other than that from the Town Council?

I have no other answer to give.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the Loss of Life at Sea during the years 1890 and 1891; and, if not for 1891, for 1890; in continuation of previous Returns on this subject?

A Return of the Loss of Life at Sea in the year 1890 will be laid on the Table of the House in continuation of Parliamentary Paper 150, 1891. The figures for 1891 are not yet complete.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why it is that the Return respecting Shipowning Magistrates, ordered by the House some weeks ago, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) is not yet issued to Members of the House; and whether he can say when the Return will be issued?

The Return in question has been delayed because I have hitherto failed in obtaining the necessary information from one port of some importance. I hope, however, that this difficulty may be got over in time to enable me to present the Return before the close of the Session.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to extend to postcards the boon of free redirection already conferred upon the public in respect of letters?

I have not seen my way to do this, inasmuch as the halfpenny rate barely pays the cost of one transmission.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a communication from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the British Medical Association, submitting to him a statement on behalf of the Committee concerning certain hardships and disadvantages in the present duties, pay, and prospects of the medical officers of prisons; and whether he is able to say that he will take measures to give effect to the suggestions set out in the Memorial submitted?

Yes, Sir, a communication of the nature described from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the British Medical Association has been received. I am well aware of the important and useful services rendered by this branch of prison officers, and any representations coming from them will meet with my most attentive consideration. It must be borne in mind, however, that the pay of the medical officers and assistants was revised and increased so lately as 1883. I do not feel able to say that I can make any recommendation to the Treasury upon the Memorial referred to.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to lay the correspondence on the Table?

To what correspondence does the hon. Member refer?

That between the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee and the right hon. Gentleman.

The Chairman sent me a copy of a printed Report with a letter which I shall be very happy to show the hon. Member with my reply, but I scarcely think the correspondence is of sufficient public interest to lay on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonics whether any compensation is to be given to those who have been compulsorily removed from Newfoundland and district in consequence of the arrangement with France; and whether one of the persons, Miss Anabella Hubert, had a grant for her property from His Majesty King George the Third, yet has been removed without compensation?

No persons have been removed from Newfoundland in consequence of the arrangement with France; although, as the hon Member is doubtless aware from the Debates of last year, certain lobster factories on the treaty shore have been closed. The claim of Miss Hubert, to which the hon. Member refers, relates to land in Cape Breton, which is part of Nova Scotia, in the Dominion of Canada, and is not affected by the Newfoundland arrangement.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention to fill the vacancy caused by the promotion of Mr. Fraser by the appointment of the officer next in seniority, or by an Inspector from Somerset House?

(who replied): I am desired by my right hon. Friend to say that the post of Superintending Inspector, vacant by the promotion of Mr. Fraser, has been filled by the promotion of the officer next in seniority.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will explain why, in view of the Minute of the Secretary for Scotland of 7th February, 1890, regulating the organisation of the office of the General Register of Sasines, which was based or, the Report of an inquiry instituted in answer to representations made in this House on behalf of the clerks, the two vacancies in the first class, one of these dating from October, 1891, are not filled up, although there are fifty clerks, some of whom have been in the Service over twenty years, in the second class to select from for these posts?

It is impossible within the limits of an answer to give in detail the reasons why the two vacancies referred to have not yet been filled Many alterations by way of promotion have taken place since the date of the Minute of the Secretary for Scotland, and it is expected that the vacancies now existing will shortly be filled up.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, in view of the facts that he stands, under the Telegraphs Acts, 1868 and 1869, as trustee of the United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company in liquidation, and that the Post Office is the user of the properties of the late Mr. Thomas Allan, all of which properties are deemed by the Telegraph Acts, 1868 and 1869, to be as land, is he aware that the Postmaster General had notice of this claim in 1870, and that, on 30th July, 1888, in the interlocutory appeal of "William Hind v. Croll," which came before Mr. Justice (now Lord) Field and Mr. Justice Cave sitting as a Divisional Court, the last-mentioned Judge ruled that the non-payment of this claim was a scandal to the Courts; and whether this claim will be at once paid?

Under the Telegraphs Act it was provided that the Postmaster General should not be required to see to the application of the money in respect of the purchase of the undertaking of the United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company or be responsible for any misapplication thereof. The Postmaster General, therefore, clearly does not stand in the position of a trustee. Mr. Allan's claim has been many times before the Courts, and has on each occasion been dismissed. In fact, the Lords Justices made an order forbidding the issue of a further writ of summons against the Postmaster General without the leave of the Court. The matter was also specially investigated by the Treasury, and the result was communicated to Parliament in 1879. The matter may therefore be said to have been finally disposed of, and it ought not now to be revived.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the County Councils having claimed the footways along the main roads are liable to repair and keep them in order after the decision in the case of "Local Board of Warminster v. County Council of Wilts," which was to the effect that the footpaths form part of the main roads which they adjoin?

My hon. Friend uses the phrase "County Councils having claimed the footways along the main roads." No claim has been made, the roads are vested in them and the footways are included. I can only state generally that it appears to me that it devolves upon the County Council to maintain and keep in repair any footway which, according to the decision of the Court in the Warminster case, forms part of a main road if the Sanitary Authority of the district in which it is included have not claimed to maintain such main road.

Are all roads vested in the County Councils?

Only main roads.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has recently received any complaints of sub-letting of contracts in connection with the Albany Street Barracks and other barrack contracts; and what steps have been taken in connection with them?

Complaints as to sub-letting under various barrack contracts were received from the London Building Trades Committee and were inquired into. It was found that at the Albany and Wellington Barracks there was no sub-letting, though the cutting of the arches had, as usual in the trade, been given out as piecework. At Plymouth the contractors for certain buildings had obtained their joinery from subcontractors; but the latter were paid one half-penny per hour above the local rate for the use of their workshop and machinery. The complaints, therefore, appear to have had no foundation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has observed that the Return "Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) (Inspectors' Reports)" contains instances of railway accidents other than and differing essentially from those ordered by the House of Commons to be reported

"as instances in which the Inspectors of the Board of Trade have represented that the hours of any of the railway servants on duty on the occasion of such accidents have been unduly long;"

It will be seen from the column of extracts from the Reports of the Inspectors that in nearly all cases the words "unduly long" would be generally admitted as a correct description of the hours. The term, however, is indefinite, and it was thought right to include in the Return every case in which the Inspector reporting upon it had expressed an unfavourable opinion either as to the length of the hours worked or as to the insufficiency of previous rest. Of course, it is for those interested in the Return to form their own opinions as to whether the views of the Inspectors were justified.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the fact that the Return ordered by the House referred to servants on duty on the occasion of such accidents having had hours of duty unduly long; whereas the Return made to the House is of instances in which Inspectors have called attention to the hours of work, not restricting it entirely to those occasions on which accidents happened?

It is restricted, as I have endeavoured to explain, to those instances in which Inspectors thought the hours were unduly long or the previous rest insufficient.

But I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in some instances the hours were not unduly long, unless he calls six hours and three-quarters unduly long?

That is a matter of opinion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there is only one steamer afloat which purports to comply with the Provisional Regulations of the Suez Canal Company, that that steamer belongs to a syndicate, that she was contracted for before the Provisional Regulations were issued, and that, in regard to all the other tank steamers, about a hundred, the Provisional Regulations are so arranged as to debar their passage; and whether, in view of the international question now raised in the Courts of Egypt, this one steamer will be allowed to pass the Canal under the Provisional Regulations, while the other ninety-nine are debarred, pending the decision of the Egyptian Courts?

There are no statistics of the number of steamers which will be affected by the Regulations in question in the possession of the Foreign Office. The regulation of the transit of these vessels is not within the functions of Her Majesty's Government, who exercise no control in the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what are the existing arrangements in regard to the Receivership of the London Common Poor Fund; whether any Government officials connected with the Local Government Board are paid out of this fund, in addition to their salaries as Government officials; and whether some arrangement can be made by which these moneys can be administered by the Local Government Board without any additional salaries from the fund being paid?

The office of Receiver of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund was held by the late Sir John Lambert when he was Permanent Secretary of the Local Government Board, and I have appointed the present Permanent Secretary of the Department as his successor. There is considerable advantage in the office being held by one who has the experience and general knowledge which the Permanent Secretary of the Board possesses as regards administration arrangements in connection with the expenditure by Boards of Guardians, which is payable out of the Common Poor Fund in accordance with the requirements of the Statute. Before making an appointment, I revised the arrangements with regard to the remuneration. The late Receiver of the fund received a salary of £700, to include expenses of assistance. I have reduced the remuneration from £700 to £400, and it is understood that out of the £400 payments for assistance not less than £200 will be made. The claims on the Common Poor Fund in respect of the last completed year exceeded £1,000,000. The net sum received by the Receiver and distributed by him exceeded a quarter of a million. The responsibility, therefore, is great, and the remuneration cannot be regarded as excessive. The duties of the office of Receiver are not to be allowed in any way to clash with the duties devolving on the Secretary. It is fair to the Secretary to add that he made no application for the post.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended immediately to press through the Council of Government of Malta the Ordinance relating to the civil effect of marriages in that island, a draft whereof appears in the Malta Gazette of 1st June, 1892, without giving Parliament an opportunity of discussing either the contents of that Ordinance, which seriously affects the Marriage Law of Malta, or the considerations of policy which have actuated Her Majesty's Government in proposing it?

The draft Ordinance to which the hon. Member's question refers was introduced by a private Member, and will not be supported by the official Members of the Council of Government, and if passed will not be assented to by the Governor, who has been instructed not to assent to any Ordinance relating to marriage pending the reference which is about to be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this matter will come before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

I believe it is before the Committee now.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police of Limerick have prohibited the city bands from playing in public; and considering no informations have been sworn before the Magistrates as to any possible danger arising from a musical demonstration of the bands, under what circumstances and by whose authority have the police exercised such prohibition?

(who replied): It appears that a full Bench of Magistrates, with the Mayor presiding, at Limerick City Petty Sessions on Friday last, prohibited the playing of bands in the streets until after the elections. Rioting had been caused by the bands in the streets on the previous Sunday, to the great danger of the public. Informations were duly sworn. The Magistrates were unanimous in their decision, and ordered the police to warn the bands of the prohibition.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the subject-matter of the letters of the 9th January, 1892, and of 12th May, 1892, sent to him by the Cork Evicted Tenants' Association; and whether he is prepared to give a definite answer in regard to the reinstatement in their holdings of the 6,000 evicted tenants concerned?

(who replied): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is unable to add anything on the subject-matter of this question to his replies to similar questions addressed to him in the House on 19th February and 28th April last.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can state the weight—number of pounds—of letters and of newspapers and other articles, respectively, despatched to the United States last year; the weight of letters and of other articles, respectively, received from the United States last year; the amount paid by the United States Government for such conveyance of mails—as given in the United States Postmaster General's Annual Report; and the amount paid by the British Government for the conveyance of our mails to America?

The weight of mails despatched from this country to the United States and to countries served through the United States during the year 1891, was as follows: Posted in United Kingdom.—Letters and postcards, 343,475 pounds; other articles, 3,061,990 pounds. Posted in other countries and sent viâ United Kingdom.—Letters and postcards, 93,463 pounds; other articles, 396,534 pounds. No record is kept in this country of the weight of mails received from the United States. According to the Report of the Postmaster General of the United States for 1891, the amount paid by the United States for Transatlantic services was as follows: Mails from United States, 417,117dols. 78c.; Foreign Mails sent viâ United States, 37,272dols. 91c—454,390dols. 69c, or £93,000. The amount paid by the British Government for the sea conveyance of mails to the United States during the year was £98,300.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the anxiety of the Government to include Saturday within the permissible polling days, if this can be done without interference with Public Business, any returning officer will be allowed to send a special messenger on Tuesday to the Privy Council Office after the Council for the Dissolution has been held, and if the writ will be given to that special messenger to be delivered to the returning officer on Tuesday evening, by which polling might be held on Saturday. Secondly, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the First Lord of the Treasury has already stated that business in the House of Lords will be entirely over on Friday, he will consider if it would not be possible to have a Sitting of this House on Saturday instead of Monday, having the meeting of the Council on Monday, by which means also Saturday might be included in the permissible polling days?

I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question.

I give notice that I will ask the question to-morrow.

Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say when the Government intend to ask the House to take into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill?

To-morrow, I think; but my right hon. Friend the First Lord, who will be in his place presently, will give the hon. Gentleman a more specific answer.

I desire to ask a question in reference to the ninth Order of the Day, the Public Authorities' Protection Bill. This Bill has not been included in any of the statements which have been made as one of those to be proceeded with. It requires five closely-printed pages to explain its meaning and contains a very long list of repeals; and though it may be—I do not say it is not—a useful measure, yet I do think some little consideration should be given to what must be a great change in the law; and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney General whether it is proposed to proceed with it to-night?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the question. I was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman considered that the Bill required any lengthened investigation, and I have no doubt that if he had had time to bestow upon it he would have found that it is a very simple proposal. The object is to reduce to one simple system those provisions in various Acts of Parliament which relate to the times for notices to be given before proceedings are to be taken. But if the right hon. Gentleman desires to have time to look into it we do not want to press the Bill to-night, and when the Order is reached it will be withdrawn.

This Bill is for the re-construction of the Scotch Fishery Board. We have already passed an Act for the purpose, and this is the second attempt at reconstructing the Board by this Parliament. I understood, when I assisted my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in aiding the Government to finish their business, that no measures controversial in their character would come before us this Session. Here, however, is a Bill which comes to us from the Lords and is now down for Second Reading—an old friend of ours we discussed last year and were unable to agree with. Last year we asked that the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) and this Bill, which is a limitation of the Bill of my right hon. Friend, should be referred to a Select Committee that the whole matter might be thoroughly threshed out. This the Government refused, and now we have their Bill before us again. I see my right hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks) has a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, but he is in Berwickshire now and cannot move that Motion, but it indicates that the Bill is of a contentious character. I do not know whether we are to contest it, but I can tell the Lord Advocate that we who represent constituencies interested are strongly opposed to every one of the proposals in the Bill. In the re-constitution of the Board we want the application of the elective principle, with a scientific member, a legal member and the Chairman of the Board appointed by the Government. We are opposed to the constitution of the Fishery Committees; we want them to be elective. We are opposed to the division of the districts into five—wo want eight or nine. It is utterly impossible to divide the Scottish coasts into five districts only; we are opposed also to the provisions in regard to mussel fisheries; and, in fact, the only way to arrive at a settlement of our differences is to take the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, and refer the two Bills to a Select Committee. Surely now, in the last hours of a dying Parliament, the Government will not seriously attempt to press forward a Bill bristling with difficulties which has not received a Second Reading? Under the circumstances, I am justified in moving the Motion of which my right hon. Friend has given notice.

I am surprised at the line taken by the hon. Member for Caithness. He appears to think that this Bill has been brought down from the other House suddenly to surprise and astonish the House of Commons; but I may remind the hon. Member that in every statement I have made with regard to public business I have mentioned this Fishery Board Bill for Scotland as one of those we greatly desired to pass, and which we had every reason to hope would not meet with serious opposition. I confess that hope has been somewhat shaken by the speech of the hon. Member and the Motion which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks). The right hon. Gentleman is not here for me to appeal to him; but I ask the hon. Member for Caithness to recollect that this Bill does meet a great want on the part of the fishing community of Scotland, and that if the Bill does not pass now it means that a settlement of this question will be postponed, certainly for a year and probably for a much longer period. It is a very serious responsibility for the hon. Member and his friends to undertake to prevent the use of public money for the purpose of mussel beds, and to say that these provisions for the encouragement of the fishing industry so earnestly desired shall be deferred because the hon. Member and his friends have not had time to consider the Bill. The provisions of the Bill are well known, they have been a considerable time before the House and are desired by the Scottish people, but if the hon. Member and his friends really mean to press their opposition to the extreme, of course we cannot hope to pass the Bill; but I must distinctly point out that the responsibility of preventing the carrying out of these beneficial arrangements in favour of the fishermen of Scotland—not the least deserving class in Scotland—must rest with the hon. Member for Caithness and the right hon. Member for Berwickshire. What view their constituents may take of that I cannot say; but, at all events, the Government are absolved from the responsibility of having failed to deal with the question, and the whole weight of the feeling of disappointment that may be raised must rest upon the hon. Member and his friends.

Surely we should have some explanation as to what is to be done in relation to this matter. I understand that a Memorandum, which has not been delivered, should have been in the hands of Members this morning.

The Bill authorises a loan of £150,000, which is to be made to the Government of British Columbia for the purposes of a colonisation scheme, mainly with reference to the Scotch crofters. The Prime Minister of British Columbia is at present in this country, and the Government of Columbia make themselves entirely responsible for the well-being of the colonists, to whom they look to develop the fisheries and other industries quite as much, and perhaps more than the agricultural industry. In order to assure the House of the way in which the scheme will be carried out, it is thought best that an agreement should be made between the Governments, and that that agreement should be laid on the Table of the House. I trust this general statement will satisfy the hon. Member that no risk is undertaken by this country, but that the whole financial risk rests with the Government of British Columbia, who at the same time make themselves responsible for the well-being of the colonists who may go out.

What interest will the Columbian Government pay?

Three per cent.

I object strongly to this Bill, the object of which, I understand, is to remove the crofters from Scotland to a far-off country at considerable expense. As regards that portion of Scotland which the Bill will affect, I believe there is plenty of land for these people if you would only let them have it. It is preserved, however, for deer and other like purposes, and the object appears to be to drive these people away from the country. As a protest against giving a guarantee to the colony of Columbia, and as a protest against driving these people from the country, I beg to move that this Bill be read this day three months.

signified that he seconded the Amendment.

You lend money to the County Councils for home colonisation at three and one-eighth per cent., and as you lend money to the Colonies at three per cent. the inference is that you prefer foreign colonisation. What you are now doing will be of no avail; the only solution of the crofters' question is to let the people re-take the land their forefathers had. Since the Crofters' Commission reported about half a million acres of land have been turned into deer forests. The First Lord said the other night that no crofters have been removed in order to create deer forests, and that is perfectly true. The process has been first to remove the crofters in order that the land might be turned into grazing tracks. Subsequently these tracks so diminish in value that they will not carry half the sheep they used to do, because the drains become filled up, and because bracken, heather, and rushes displace the nutritive grasses. The sheep farmers then hand them over to the landlord, and they are then transformed into deer forests. Now, all that you propose to do is to permit our country to become a hunting ground, and to send the people away to Manitoba and British Columbia for the purpose of developing the resources of those colonies. I protest, as I have done many times already, against that as a means of solving a difficulty which can alone be solved by giving the people sufficient land on which they can live and thrive. I protest against that policy, and I hope that on the appeal to the country we shall have a Government which will pursue the policy of home as against foreign colonisation.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told the House with perfect truth that this is not the first occasion on which he has spoken on the question before us; but I cannot allow, even for a second or third time, the doctrine which he has advanced to go unchallenged. Those doctrines surely are to be addressed to persons, totally unacquainted with the conditions of agriculture in the Highlands, and the conditions under which alone it is possible for pastural or agricultural industry to thrive in the districts where sheep farms have existed, and where in many cases deer forests now exist. It is impossible over the greater part of the country devoted to sheep or deer that any human being, highlander or otherwise, can live and flourish as hon. Members suggest. Conditions of nature and of agriculture have rendered such a condition of things perfectly impossible. It is, I believe, possible in certain districts for persons with large capital to carry on pastoral pursuits with some degree of success; but the idea of turning the land into small holdings to be cultivated by the spade, on which men can live and flourish, is perfectly ridiculous in reference to the Highlands. It is quite true that in Sutherlandshire and some other districts there was a population which was moved down to the coast by the proprietors, but that has not been done with a view of profit, but solely with a view of preventing those recurring epidemics of starvation by which from time to time they were assailed. If you insist upon restoring to these Highland glens the people who once lived in them, you will again enter on the same economic conditions which have produced so much harm. I do not believe that any system of agriculture or State aid can by any possible contrivance convert these Highland valleys into places where Highland populations can live with comfort. Such experience as I have in the Highlands shows me that as the standard of comfort increases it is found more and more difficult to induce the people to live in these remote corries subject to all the rigours of the climate, which is hard on the people and harder on the crops they endeavour to raise. I do not think a greater crime can be committed than for those who have influence over the crofters to induce them not to move to homes of industry where they can really live and thrive, and to hold out before their eyes a prospect of change which, however much it might injure the landlord, would inflict far more serious injury upon the population. With regard to this particular Bill, I do not understand that the hon. Member desires to oppose it; but I think the hon. Member will admit that it would be impossible to carry out any conceivable system of migration which would benefit the fishermen of Lewis. The only conceivable alternative is to find some home across the sea, whore, still under the British flag, they can find more favourable conditions for pursuing the industry by which they have endeavoured so far to obtain a living at home. If the hon. Gentleman takes that view it is not necessary for us to further pursue the controversy with regard to emigration. Let it be understood that there are portions of the population that would be benefited by migration, and if that small concession is made I think the House may agree to this stage of the measure.

This policy, so far as Her Majesty's Government has a policy on the subject, is perfectly well known to the country. I think, however, we have cause to complain that a Bill of this importance should have been rushed through the House at this late and inconvenient period of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the bad climate, and of other natural drawbacks; but it is surely a strong commentary upon that argument that hon. Members are frequently in a great hurry to bring their duties to a close in order that they may go to recuperate in that climate. It is held by some that crops cannot ripen in the Highlands, and in reference to this I may point out that we have never asserted that the quality of the soil of the Highlands approaches the soil of the Lowlands. We, however, desire that such advantages as nature has given should be availed of before any other remedy is tried. I have no desire to open up old sores; but if there is one lesson that has been taught by what has happened in the Highlands it is that there is only hope in reversion to the old mode of distribution of the land. The Government have not shown the slightest indication of reverting to that policy. The Royal Commission of 1883 made special provisions for putting the people back on the soil; and does the Government mean to say that these preparations would have been made if the land had been unfit? I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received any resolutions from the crofters asking to be sent to British Columbia? They have received no such resolutions. Her Majesty's Government ought, therefore, to be ashamed of themselves to come forward at the end of the Session with such a proposal. A Special Committee was appointed to inquire into the question of emigration from the United Kingdom. The question, however, has been narrowed down to that of emigration from the Highlands of Scotland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in the attempt to rush the Bill through at this late stage of the Session. If he does, the Members for Scotland will take every opportunity of moving Amendments in Committee. We are deeply interested in the welfare of the people of the Highlands, and have no wish to see them handed over to the tender mercies of a Board of Emigration.

With regard to the remark of the hon. Member, that this Bill is being rushed through the House at the end of the Session, I think it is only respectful to the House and to the hon. Member himself that I should state that the reason why the Bill has been brought forward so late is that we have been awaiting the arrival of the Prime Minister of British Columbia, who, after the Bill passed the Colonial Legislature, was deputed to come to England in order to arrive at an agreement with the Home Government. It was impossible to finally settle the details before he came. I would further remind the hon. Member and the House that the scheme was strongly recommended by the Select Committee on Colonization, and that the House has been informed of its general character for a long time past.

Have the Committee had before them the Act passed by the Colonial Legislature?

They had the general scheme of emigration to British Columbia before them, but not the Act itself. Several hon. Members for Scotland have spoken of the crofters being sent to British Columbia, as if they were to be expatriated against their will. It is nothing of the kind. The facts are, that here is a thriving Colony anxious to receive settlers, and there are crofters anxious to go as settlers. No compulsion whatever is exercised in the matter. The Government of British Columbia have made themselves responsible for the welfare of the emigrants, and there is strong reason for hoping that this experiment, if carried out as has been arranged, will be successful. All that we now ask of the House is to authorize an advance. The House will afterwards have full opportunity of criticising the way in which the scheme has been carried out.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that these Scotch crofters are anxious to go to British Columbia, and that the Government of the Colony are anxious to receive them, may I ask why the Colonial Government should not themselves find the money for emigrating the crofters without calling upon the Home Government in the matter? I object to this loan to British Columbia, and especially at a lower rate of interest than is charged to the County Councils. Nor do I see what claim the Government of British Columbia can have on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom when they levy heavy import duties upon all products from the Mother Country. The result will be a repetition of previous experience in similar cases. In a few years we shall be called upon, for some reason or other, to forego the interest on the loan, and again, a few years later, we shall be asked to forego the capital. I hope the hon. Member will go to a Division on the question.

I wish to—

Order! The hon. Member took off his hat in response to the question I put whether anyone seconded the Amendment. He has, therefore, lost his right of speaking.

I beg to move to report Progress, and that the Chairman ask leave to sit again. Our position is this: that a Bill bristling with controversial points has been introduced for the first time this day, and that we have had no time to put down Amendments and to get them discussed. There is also the Bill of the right hon. Member for Berwickshire. We are not agreed as to the composition of the Fishery Board, and nearly all the Members representing the fishery districts of Scotland are opposed to this proposal. There is also the question of representation. We are anxious to have some representation of Town Councils in fishery burghs. The members elected on the Boards should not be nominated, but elected by those engaged in the fishing industry. We have a number of Amendments to put down, but if the matter is rushed through in this fashion there will be no opportunity of discussing them.

I have explained to the House what the position of the Government is in regard to this Bill. I admit that if its details require prolonged discussion, or, rather, if hon. Members insist upon discussion at any length, it will be impossible to proceed with the Bill this Session. In that case the responsibility will rest on those hon. Gentlemen who will deprive the fishermen of the benefits of this proposal, while waiting for a more perfect measure I would invite the hon. Member to put his Amendments on the Paper in order that the Government may see the extent of the opposition. If much discussion is required, of course the Government will not press the Bill forward, but I trust that the hon. Member will not pursue his opposition.

I would ask that the Committee stage should be postponed until Thursday, in order to admit of time for drafting Amendments.

If the hon. Member wishes to bring the Bill into accord with the measure of the right hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), I do not think it will be difficult to draft Amendments with that object.