I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the expediency of this House sitting on Saturday next, with a view to the Council for the Prorogation and Dissolution being held on the subsequent Monday, in order to include Saturday in the legal days for polling; and whether it will be open to any returning officer to send a special messenger to the Writ Office immediately after the Council for the Dissolution has been held and to receive the writ for a constituency by said messenger, so as to enable him to issue the statutory notice on that day, and thereby render the following Saturday one of the legal days for polling?

As the hon. Member knows, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) pressed me very strongly on Monday to state explicitly and finally the day for Dissolution. I was rather disinclined to do so then, but I yielded to his exhortations and stated that the two Councils for Prorogation and Dissolution would be held on Tuesday. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make an alteration in the date now, and I think the public would have reason to complain if a statement thus publicly made were withdrawn from. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I am advised that, having regard to the provisions of the Act 53 Geo. III., cap. 89, the course the hon. Member proposes would be illegal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the difficulties in the way of a Saturday Sitting and the Council meeting on Monday?

One of the difficulties—I need not go into them in detail—consists in my having publicly stated in answer to a question put to me that the Dissolution would be on Tuesday. Every one concerned has made his arrangements upon that understanding, and I do not think we ought to depart from it.

Does the Attorney General confirm the First Lord's view of the law, that the Writs could not be handed to a special messenger?

Certainly.

Are we to understand that the House will sit tomorrow, and that then a Motion will be made for adjournment to Monday

Yes, I think the House must sit to-morrow to take the last stage of the British Columbia Loan Bill. When that Bill is disposed of, and other unopposed measures are passed, a Motion will be made for adjournment to Monday.

Then I beg to give notice that, on the Motion for Adjournment, I shall call attention to the way in which Her Majesty's Government have thrown difficulties in the way of the exercise of the franchise by large numbers of the artisan class in the General Election.

The hon. Member, of course, is within his right, but I regret to say that other engagements will prevent my being here to answer, for the third time, his arguments on this subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice: whether he thinks it is now possible to relax the restrictions placed upon the removal of cattle to and from the Metropolitan Cattle Markets?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I think the time has come when the propriety of relaxing the regulations imposed on the movement of cattle in the Metropolis may be considered, and I hope in a few days to be able to announce some relaxation of the present restrictions.

I only wish to ask my right hon. Friend what are the intentions of the Government with reference to this clause, which in its final form was drafted by my right hon. Friend himself, or by the Government draftsman. It was sent to the House of Lords, and Lord Cadogan, who had charge of the Bill on the Second Reading, expressed himself in favour of the principle, recommending however that the clause should be omitted and an improved and amended clause inserted at this stage. In Committee in the other House the clause was struck out, and in the subsequent stage an alternative proposal by Lord Herschell was rejected. I now ask my right hon. Friend whether he intends to uphold the undertaking given by Lord Cadogan, or what course he proposes to take?

As the House is aware, when this clause was moved in the House of Commons originally I expressed the objections I entertained to it. Under pressure, however, I eventually inserted the clause on Report stage. Various points of difficulty were discussed in the other House, and a clause to carry out the view of my hon. Friend was opposed by the Prime Minister and rejected by a large majority. I own that so far as I am concerned I have not changed the opinion which I entertained when the proposal was made. Having in view all the circumstances of the case, the period of the Session, and in my great anxiety to do nothing to delay or prejudice the possibility of the Bill passing into law, under the circumstances I do not propose to make any alteration, but to accept the Lords' Amendment.

It is quite true the right hon. Gentleman expressed objection to the proposal when it was first introduced by the hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Cust), but later, and after considerable discussion in the House, and when there were strong manifestations of opinion on the other side of the House in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member, the right hon. Gentleman gave way, and the hon. Member for Stamford withdrew his clause, with the object of another clause being subsequently proposed to deal with the subject in a more satisfactory way; and on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman himself proposed the clause for the purpose of carrying into effect the object of the hon. Member for Stamford. Now, I have always understood that when a Minister in charge of a Bill after a long discussion agrees to an important Amendment he does so on behalf of his colleagues, and upon the understanding that Ministers in the other House will support the Amendment. The present case is much stronger than usual, because it was not merely the acceptance of an Amendment in this House. The right hon. Gentleman himself introduced the clause on the Report stage for the purpose of carrying out the object in view. The clause was, therefore, prepared by the Government draftsman, and was adopted after careful consideration by the Government. When the Bill went to the other House, Lord Cadogan, who had charge of it, stated that it was the intention of the Government to support the principle of the clause. He added that the clause as framed did not meet his view, but that at al ater stage he would support another clause having the same object in view. But when at a later stage a clause in this sense was moved from the other side of the House, the Prime Minister and the Government opposed the principle of it, and Lord Herschell's clause was rejected. The members of the Government, therefore, in the other House adopted a totally different course to that pursued by the Minister here, a course altogether contrary to the usual practice. The proper course is for Members of the Government in the other House to support a promise given or conclusion arrived at by the Members of the Government here. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stamford proposes to disagree with the Lords' Amendment?

No, not unless the President of the Board of Agriculture is willing to consider a new clause.

That is a somewhat strange course to follow. I should have thought the hon. Member would have been prepared to move to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, and to support the view he entertained when the Bill was before the House. Under the circumstances, and in the present state of the House, and when the hon. Member who originally proposed the clause is not prepared to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, do not feel that I should be justified in asking the House to disagree with the Amendment. I must, however, enter my protest against the course pursued by the Government, which is extremely inconsistent and not in accordance with well-understood practice. The clause which has been rejected was an extremely valuable one. The change made in the measure will, I think, be productive of grave inconvenience. I need hardly point out we have direct precedent for the clause, because such a proposal in regard to small holdings passed both Houses last year in the Irish Land Purchase Act. Small holdings in Ireland are by that Act converted into personalty. That is a precedent and an exact analogy for the application of the same principle in this case. I observe that Lord Salisbury has stated as an argument for not agreeing to the clause that it is competent for the Local Authority to grant leases for land under the Bill for 999 years; but I will venture to say it is not competent for the Local Authority to do this. The power of the Local Authority is strictly limited, and it will not be possible for the Council to grant leases for 999 years. Such leases do not come within the general purview of the Bill, and therefore the course suggested by Lord Salisbury could not be followed. On the whole, I think grave inconvenience must result from this change, and it would have been a great benefit to those for whom the Bill is intended if the intention of making these small holdings personalty were carried out. If the Government had resisted the proposal of the hon. Member for Stamford when it was before the House the Government would probably have been defeated; and it is not to the credit of the Government after they saved themselves from defeat by concession that they should strike out that concession in the other House.

I hope the hon. Member for Stamford will have the courage to take the opinion of the House on the question. I regret the attitude of the Minister for Agriculture. No one who has had even the limited experience of conveyancing that I have had can doubt the hardships that arise out of the mode of devolution of real estate. It was said in the other House that this is not the Bill upon which to introduce such a change in the law, but I differ from that view altogether. What is it you are doing by this Bill? You are inviting, you are tempting, poor men to scrape together all their pecuniary resources for investment in land. Whether they will yield to the temptation I do not know, but for the purpose of arguing on the Bill we assume they will. A poor man is tempted by the favourable terms offered in the Bill, and invests all his money in a small holding. He dies intestate, leaving a widow and young children; the land descends to the eldest son, it may be an infant; the farm cannot be carried on, the estate must be sold, with all the attendant expenses, to the great loss of the family. We are told this is not a suitable time to make this reform; but I say when you are tempting a poor man to invest all his means in land you should make provision, in case of his dying intestate, for his property being distributed in a just and equitable manner. It is all very well for the Lord Chancellor to say that everybody should make a will. Even if the owners of these small holdings did make wills, such wills, like those of certain Lord Chancellors, might not be intelligible, and might give rise to long and expensive litigation. As we live in a betting age, I would not mind betting an even £5 note that if the will of the present Lord Chancellor were critically examined, flaws might be found in it, especially if he had drawn it up himself. After tempting poor people to invest their small savings in land we might injure them by putting them to the expense of making a will, which would perhaps afterwards require the decision of a Court. I, therefore, hope that the Lords' Amendment will be disagreed from.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into the question of wills. I only wish to express the hope that the Government will not allow7 the arrangement which was entered into in this House in regard to this matter to be set aside by their colleagues in the other House. I think that the Government should stand by it and make the best of it.

At the time that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stamford was accepted by the Government it was pointed out that it was a difficult matter, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture did not accept it till the Report stage. Personally speaking, I was satisfied that when the clause left this House it had not been fully and properly considered.

I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture himself moved the clause.

I am aware of that fact, but I do not understand the necessity for the interruption; I simply say that the difficulty of working the clause had not been properly understood. When it came to be fully examined in the other House, a majority of the noble and learned Lords deemed it would be unworkable, and that it would not cure the evil that it was intended to meet. I think it will be admitted that their opinion is entitled to some respect on such a question. By the Act of 1890 it is provided that, in the case of the owner of a small landed property dying intestate, the widow is to receive up to £500 out of the proceeds of the sale. That provision would prevent to a great extent the mischief which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out as likely to arise under this Bill. Under all the circumstances, I am willing to take my share of the responsibility for the present position of affairs. I have done my best to advise my right hon. Friend in regard to this matter, but it does seem to me that it requires still further consideration. It is a question which cannot, in my opinion, be properly dealt with in a short clause. I would further state, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that I can find no words in the Bill which would prevent County Councils from granting leases for 999 years or other long terms.

The action of the House of Lords in this matter has, I think, been extremely cruel—I might almost use even a stronger term. Where large landed properties are concerned provision is made by settlements and wills for the younger members of a family; but poor men are extremely reluctant to spend money upon lawyers for making wills, more particularly as the circumstances of their lives may change, and after making one will they may have to make another. Therefore poor men often put off making a will, and die intestate. Then, again, there have been numerous cases in which the eldest son may be a spendthrift, and the greatest hardship might be entailed upon the widow and younger children. The House of Lords have never used its power with less reason, justice, or consideration for the poorer classes than when it insisted on maintaining an antiquated system of succession.

I should be glad to see the Government revert, if it were possible, to their former position in regard to this matter, especially as we cannot alter the Act of 1890.

There is no use in fighting against the Master of many legions. We can only enter our protest against the Government accepting, without a discussion, a clause in one House which they rejected in another, especially when the Government have the control of the other House. This Bill left the House of Commons before Whitsuntide, and there was every reason to expect that it would come back when there would be sufficient Members to consider it; but it has been deliberately kept back until the last moment, when it cannot be properly considered. We know the difficulties with which the House of Lords have been overwhelmed, its long Sittings, and the vast amount of business with which it has had to deal; but, at the same time, looking to the position which the Bill occupies, as the most important measure of the Session, the House of Commons has a right to expect that these Amendments shall be considered at a time when they would not be precluded from expressing an opinion upon them.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that the re-consideration of this Bill has been deliberately postponed in order to secure its consideration in a thin House, when practical discussion would be out of the question, I must differ from him altogether. So far as I and the Government are concerned, we have been anxious that the Bill should come before the House at a time which would allow of its thorough discussion; and I wish the House in fairness to consider exactly what the position has been, to recollect the circumstances under which this clause left the House, and to remember that I did my best to give effect to the pledge I gave that I would introduce a clause on the subject. But I think those who followed the discussion in the other House must have also been convinced that the clause suggested would not have worked satisfactorily or well. Then we are in this position—that if I were in the very last hours of the Session to attempt to deal with the matter, one of the most important objects the House of Commons could consider would be dealt with hurriedly and without full consideration. Then what should we gain? Although I am entirely in sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend I think the gain would be practically nothing, because the question will have to be dealt with in the near future; and thus we have to consider how many cases would be dealt with by this Bill in the meantime. I hope it will have a large operation, and come promptly into effect, but some months must elapse before people can come into possession of these holdings, and surely when they do take possession it is not to be expected that they will die off like flies. Possibly before even a single death takes place a new law will have been made, and, under hese circumstances, I hope the House will agree to accept the Amendment.

I wish to inform the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) that my hon. Friends and I have handed in our Amendments, but they do not appear on the Paper, as we read the Bill a second time yesterday only half-an-hour before the House adjourned. Under the circumstances, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone further proceedings with the Bill until to-morrow, and with that object I move that Progress be now reported. Then, to-morrow, we can carry on the discussion.

I hope the Government will consent to report Progress with a view to withdrawing the Bill, unless it should be possible to make arrangements by which some of the Amendments handed in can be accepted. We all agree that the time has come when some change should be made in the Fishery Board of Scotland; but those whom I represent have a strong feeling that there should be no re-constitution of the Fishery Board unless accompanied by provision for the representation of fishermen by election on that Board. There is no provision of the kind in the Bill at present. I would point out to the First Lord that, under these circumstances, this Bill is highly contentious, and that it is not right or fair to the Scotch Members that it should be taken in the present condition of the House, when there are only five Scotch Members left on this side, and when there are no Scotch Members on the other side, except Members of the Government. Under these circumstances, I think it would be altogether unreasonable to now proceed with the Bill. I do not think the delay that would take place until a new Session is a serious matter; at least, it is not to be compared with the disadvantage of carrying the Bill in its present form.

I cannot agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that it is a matter of small moment that any settlement of this question should be deferred to another Parliament. I know how difficult it is to get Bills of this kind through any Parliament; and I know how long a Bill of this sort, even when promised by a Government, takes to get through. Therefore I fear if, through the action of the hon. Gentleman and his friends, the passage of this Bill is deferred, that it may be a longtime before we see the question taken up again in a serious spirit and brought to a satisfactory conclusion. But, at the same time, if it he true, as I understand it is from hon. Members who have spoken, that large and important Amendments are put down which make it impossible to take the Bill to-day, and therefore involve a postponement of the further stages of the Bill, I have to recognise that it is quite impossible for the Government to pass the Bill during the present Session. I can only repeat that I regard the decision of hon. Gentlemen with great regret, and I must throw the responsibility upon them. Under these circumstances, I consent to report Progress, and I shall not endeavour to do that which is absolutely impossible—to carry the Bill in the course of the present Parliament.

We accept the responsibility of killing the Bill if necessary. My Amendments and those of my hon. Friends aim simply at bringing the Bill back to its original condition. The reason we have this Bill before us is because we had a Select Committee. The Scotch Office asked the Chairman of that Committee to draft a Bill, which he did, expecting that the Government would assist in carrying it out. But what have they done? Instead of attempting to pass the Bill as he drafted it, they have taken almost everything valuable out of it. All we are trying to do is to put the Bill into something like its original shape, so as to give effect to the suggestions of the Royal Commission and Select Committee who sat on this matter; and unless the Government are prepared to adopt their recommendations we will gladly kill the Bill. One point we intend to insist upon is that the members of these fishery committees shall, instead of being nominated, be elected by persons connected with the fishing industry. Another point is whether there shall be live or eight fishery committees. If the Lord Advocate can show that it is possible by dividing Scotland into five districts only to make this a workable measure, we will not oppose it; but at the present time we think there must be eight of these committees. Our Amendments are solely for the purpose of making this Bill a really useful and workable one. This is the second time in the present Parliament that the House has re-constructed the Fishery Board, and we do not want to have to re-construct it in the first Session of the next Parliament. Therefore, unless the Government are prepared to meet us in these and other respects, and to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission and Select Committee, we do not want the Bill at all.

I have in my constituency some four hundred voters who are fishermen, and I am certain they would not vote for me at the next election if I were to allow a Bill to go through this House which did not give them a voice in the election of the Fishery Board. Therefore I cheerfully accept the responsibility which may be supposed to attach to the attitude I have taken up, and I am sure that neither my friends the fishermen nor anyone else will regret the withdrawal of the Bill.

I was only able to put down one Amendment to this clause yesterday, because I had not time to further consider it. There are, however, one or two important points in connection with this clause about which I should like some information. I notice by this second clause that it is the intention of the Government to lend the money out of the Consolidated Fund, whereas the proposal when it came before the Select Committee, of which I was a member, was that the Government should simply guarantee the loan. I believe if the British Columbia Government were to put their bonds for this three per cent. loan upon the market they would stand at par, with the guarantee of the British Government behind them. If that course were pursued the bondholders could only comedown upon the Home Government in case the Government of British Columbia repudiated the debt. But the proposal before the House opens up a very different state of things from that. We are to take the bonds of the Government of British Columbia, and lend them the money out of the Consolidated Fund. Now, we know what has occurred in the past with reference to a number of loans of that description, both as regards the Colonies and various Local Bodies. Unless the thing is a success the British taxpayer has to find the money, and I am a little doubtful about the success of this movement. I think the Government should not have gone further than the scheme as originally drafted by Mr. Begg, simply for commercial purposes, because there is a strong commercial element in this matter. Then I should like an explanation of Sub-section (2). It says the Government of British Columbia—

"Shall repay every sum advanced by equal half-yearly instalments within twenty years from the date of its advance, and the first of such instalments shall be paid within five years from the date of the advance."

With regard to the first question, I would point out that the proposal before the Select Committee was not the guarantee of a loan, as the hon. Member appears to think, but the advance of £150,000 at two and three-quarters per cent. On the second point about which he asks for information, I may say that the Government of British Columbia will pay three per cent. interest during the first five years, such interest being added each year to the capital so as to become compound interest. The Committee will see, therefore, that the British taxpayer will lose nothing in the way of interest.

I should like to move, as an Amendment to Clause 2, to leave out in line 27 the words "one-hundred and fifty thousand pounds," and insert "one thousand pounds." That is to say, that the sum to be advanced shall not exceed £1,000, instead of £150,000. I do this in order to enter my protest against what I regard as an odious squandering of public money and a most discreditable association with land adventurers. The proper way to cure the existing state of things in the Highlands is not by spending public money to remove from the country the working portion of the population. If we are to spend public money at all for the purposes of emigration it should be to remove the landlords—the idle and useless part of the population. I must respectfully enter my protest against what is a scandalous abuse of the powers of the Imperial Government in employing money for the purpose of encouraging land schemers and land adventurers in British Columbia to rob Scotland of population which it can ill afford to spare.

The Amendment proposed is hardly of a serious character, and it would completely alter the character of the Bill. The proper course for the hon. Member to take would be to object to the second clause, and when I put it to vote against it.

In the past we have always been permitted to move the reduction of any sum proposed by the Treasury. On the Second Reading we affirmed the principle that some sum should be given, and on the Third Reading of the Bill, as we are not allowed to reduce the amount, we will give it a parting kick. If my hon. Friend does not press his Amendment I shall move the one of which I have given notice, namely, that the rate of interest to be charged be three and one-eighth per cent. instead of three per cent. We recently had before the House a scheme for the creation of small holdings, and we then asked the Treasury to lend the necessary money to the County Councils—a body over which we have much more control than we have over a Colonial Government—at three per cent. in order that they might carry out this policy of home colonisation. However, we were told that it was absolutely necessary to charge three and one-eighth per cent. unless we were to make a loss. Either that statement was wrong or the Treasury are proposing to lend this money to the Government of British Columbia at a lower rate than the cost will be. The object of my Amendment, which I now beg to move, is to place the Colony on the same footing as the County Councils.

If I were convinced by the ingenious argument of the hon. Member I should be unable to accept his Amendment, because the Colony has passed an Act to accept this advance at three per cent. interest, and they would refuse to carry out this scheme of colonisation in British Columbia except under the terms of that Act. With regard to the very ingenious dilemma which he seeks to create, that either this three per cent. to be charged to the Colony is too low or the rate of interest charged to the County Councils is too high, I might point out that this arrangement with British Columbia is the result of negotiations between ourselves and the Legislature of that country. Originally the Colony wished to pay only two and three-quarters per cent., but eventually we arrived at a compromise by which they agreed to pay three per cent. It is useless, therefore, to suppose that the Government of British Columbia will consent to carry out this colonisation scheme unless they can borrow the money at three per cent.

I do not think it would be a very serious evil if the Bill were postponed and new negotiations were entered into between the Government of British Columbia and the Treasury. I happen to know the whole history of this from the beginning, because Mr. Begg is one of my constituents, or rather he comes from Caithness. He took up this scheme and formed the company which is to find a market for the fish, and by bringing pressure to bear on the Government of British Columbia got them to countenance the scheme. He is running the undertaking as a commercial speculation for profit to himself, and the moment this money is paid to British Columbia the company will come into active operation. I say there is no need for this loan. There is plenty of room for these Highlanders at home. I will not ask the Government to take my word or the word of any Radical, but I will give them the evidence of the Royal Commission, composed of six gentlemen, five of whom were Conservative landlords who have fifty acres of deer forests. The evidence given to the Commission will prove that there is no need for this Bill. All that is wanted is to place the people where they ought to be, and then there would be no congestion whatever. I do not know whether that evidence will convince the Government, but it would convince any unbiassed person that there is not congestion there of the kind that exists in the East End of London and in the large manufacturing towns. It is an artificial congestion; and if the Treasury are going to lend the money to the Colonies to relieve congestion of this kind, they might easily lend one hundred and fifty millions. Again, I question whether we ought to permit the Treasury to lend money to the Colonies at a lower rate than it advances money to our own County Councils. I think we ought rather to increase it. And I must point out to the Government that at the present moment British Columbia cannot raise money at less than four per cent. I hold their bonds at that price, and if they go into the open market they cannot get money for less. With the figures in the Bill if the money were borrowed it would be below par, at ninety-six or ninety-seven probably, and there would be a certain amount of risk. The undertaking, as I have said, is purely commercial; there is nothing philanthropic in it, and I do not see why such terms should be given.

The hon. Member is following out the line he took on the Committee some time ago, but he did not divide the Committee against this scheme for British Columbia. He did oppose the principle, and he divided the Committee on the proposed extension of the experiment to Manitoba, and he stood alone. The hon. Member complained at the time of the way in which the Government were treating these Highlanders in preferring emigration to migration, and I admit that he is now only following out the action he then took. No one can quarrel with that, but I should like to point out that the large majority of the Committee approved of the scheme. The question of the percentage seems to me to be a matter between the two Governments, and one in which the Committee need not interfere. With respect to the suggestion that British Columbia might repudiate its liabilities and obligations under this loan, I think it should not have been made, and I am sure this House will give no encouragement to the supposition. No British colony has ever yet failed in its obligations. This colony is one of immense resources, and its statesmen have shown a prudence and ability which are not at all likely to lead to the evil example of repudiation.

I was not speaking of any fear of British Columbia repudiating the liability, but the right hon. Gentleman must know that there are several cases in which loans have been made to Crown Colonies, and even to self-governing Colonies, and the money has not been repaid to the Treasury. The same thing has occurred locally, and there seems to be an idea that when money is borrowed from the Treasury for a special purpose and the experiment is not a success, the Treasury must bear the brunt. That argument has been use in several cases. I frankly admit that on the Committee several years ago to which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Fergusson) has referred, I did not object to this particular scheme, because the Government were determined to have some kind of emigration experiment, and they voted £30,000 for it. The experiment was a failure because of the bad way in which it was carried out, but I think the present experiment has a far greater chance of success. I shall watch the experiment with interest, and it is because I believe it has greater chances of success that I do not oppose it so strongly. But I do oppose it in the interest of the taxpayer, and also because these people, whose emigration is to be provided for, could under just and reasonable conditions be quite as happy at home.

I should like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the first Motion on the Paper was moved as an unopposed Return, whereas consent had not previously been obtained in favour of the Motion.

I understood it was to be moved as an unopposed Return on behalf of the hon. Member?

No, Sir; consent had not been obtained.