I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Irwin, the Resident Magistrate in Limerick, dissented from the decision of the Limerick Bench of Magistrates in regard to the prohibition of band playing until the election is over, the Government will cause the order of the Magistrates to be withdrawn?

I am informed that the Resident Magistrate did not dissent from the decision of the Limerick Bench of Magistrates, but he threw out the suggestion that until the election is actually in progress it might be sufficient to prohibit the band from playing on Sunday and upon other days after nightfall. The Executive Government have no power to interfere with the discretion of the Magistrates in this matter.

Having reference to the same subject, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have not been able to give notice, but which perhaps he can answer off-hand: Whether, having in view the possibility of conflicts arising between rival political parties in Ireland during the forthcoming Parliamentary elections, the Government will take special care that peaceable citizens who desire to record their votes shall have all necessary protection in doing so?

If my hon. Friend requires information as to any specific occasion it will be necessary for me to make inquiry; but, of course, it is the duty of the Government and those responsible for the peace of any district during the elections to take care that the peace is preserved, and to the best of their ability this duty will be carried out.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why, since the acceleration of the day mails to the North of Ireland, the sorting clerks of the Dublin Office have been compelled to perform a third daily duty, and this in direct opposition to the understanding under which they entered the Service, which was to the effect that their daily duty was to be performed in two periods; whether he is aware that this duty keeps the staff practically on duty from a very early hour in the morning until late in the evening, and forces the majority of them, who have to live through necessity at long distances from the General Post Office, to walk three hours a day going to and from their duty; and if he will see his way to abolish this duty by keeping the staff up to its full strength, as it has been considerably short for a long period, and by having the night mails disposed of in the various travelling post-offices, which would meet the exigency which created the duty complained of?

A Report has been asked for from Dublin upon the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question. As to the third paragraph, the information in the London Office shows that there are twenty-six vacancies in the staff of 262 sorting clerks at Dublin not yet filled up. Some delay has arisen in the re-construction of the arrangements, but a Committee appointed for the purpose has now reported, and soon the staff will be brought up to its proper strength.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the fourteen days' annual leave granted to the officers of Her Majesty's Convict Prison, Portland, which leave is to be taken under the regulations as to one seven days before the 1st July in each year, and as to the remaining seven days after the 1st July, whether it was intended that such divided leave should be granted to the prison officers so far as possible when convenient to them, especially having regard to the fact that, when they were formerly allowed eleven days' leave of absence, such leave was not only granted without apportionment into two halves as now, but was obtainable when most convenient to the applicant?

It is intended that leave should be granted when most convenient to the officers, subject to the requirements of the service and the claims for preference of choice among the officers themselves. It was found formerly when no system was followed that applications for leave were made at the same period of the year, with the result that they could not all be granted. The present system has been in force at other convict prisons, with the result of spreading the leave more equally over the year.

I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman can answer a question of which I have not been able to give him notice: Whether he is aware that at High Barnet a placard inviting the electors to vote for the local Conservative candidate is affixed to the Court House; and is that consistent with the law?

I am afraid I cannot answer the question without consulting the Statutes.

I do not quite see why we should adjourn to Monday. I presume we have to adjourn over one day because we have to wait for certain Bills to come to us from the Lords. But, as I understand, the House of Lords will finish these Bills on Friday; consequently if we have a Sitting on Saturday, instead of adjourning from now to Monday, the Dissolution Councils could be held on Monday, and the Writs issued the same day, and then Saturday, about which day there has been some little dispute, would be included in the permissible days on which polling might take place. Now, we fully understood that as soon as the necessary business was disposed of the Dissolution would take place. At the same time we were no doubt informed—in fact, we know—that a certain time would have to be allowed to the House of Lords to discuss and pass certain Bills sent up to them from this House. We allowed the House of Lords ample time. We passed—I think we were urged to do so—the Agricultural Holdings Bill before Whitsuntide, and we anticipated that the House of Lords would pass the Second Reading of that Bill before Whitsuntide. But they did not do that, and they also took two days extra holidays for their Whitsuntide Recess beyond that we thought sufficient for ourselves, although our labours are more exhausting than those of the House of Lords. On Monday they passed the Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and then they absolutely adjourned it for three days and only took the Bill in Committee on Friday. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) told us to keep a special eye upon the House of Lords to see how long those noblemen sat each day, and I have kept an eye upon their proceedings. On Monday they adjourned before dinner, at seven o'clock. On Tuesday they adjourned important matters they had under discussion shortly after seven o'clock, and then amused themselves for some time discussing some question in relation to the Earldom of Mar, which can scarcely be said to be of great public interest. On Wednesday, of course, the House of Lords does not usually sit; but I think under the pressure of business, and to further the desire in the country for a Dissolution as early as possible, they might have stretched a point and sat on Wednesday, but they did not. But, Mr. Speaker, anxious as the noble Lords seem to have been to adopt a dilatory policy in regard to the Public Business of the country, they have not the staying power some of us have in this House. Do what they would they were unable to extend what they are pleased to call their labours up to Saturday. So it becomes clear they will finish on Friday, and if we have a Sitting on Saturday we can have the Dissolution on Monday. Generally speaking, and I think almost always at the end of a Session, Saturday is taken to expedite business and bring the Session to an end; and I must say it seems somewhat strange that the Government should now refuse a Saturday Sitting, not only to bring the Session to a close this week, but to expedite the Dissolution. Yesterday I asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consider the expediency of meeting on Saturday to finish the business of the House, and the only reason the right hon. Gentleman could urge against adopting that course was that he had given an assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that the Dissolution would not take place before Tuesday. But, Sir, I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that he will entirely release the right hon. Gentleman from any pledge he has given on the subject. It may suit my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, and perhaps others in the House, that the arrangement should not be altered in connection with the elections; but my right hon. Friend feels that he ought not to stand in the way of what he considers the desire and wish of a great number of electors, and I need not say that at the present moment we are all anxious to please the electors. Therefore, perhaps, it will remove any difficulty the First Lord of the Treasury may feel as to his having given a pledge, that my right hon. Friend entirely releases him from it. We do not—and I cannot urge this too often—for a moment ask that all the elections shall take place on Saturday. The First Lord of the Treasury said that Saturday would be a disfranchising day, because small traders could not leave their business to vote, and Jews could not vote on that day. But the small traders are in the habit of voting in the morning. We know perfectly well that they can and do vote then, when they have plenty of time, because their business does not begin until the evening. As regards Jews, they, no doubt, are in considerable numbers in some constituencies; but in other constituencies they may be said hardly to exist as electors. Where they are in large numbers the returning officer no doubt will take the fact into consideration and appoint a day other than Saturday; but in other places the returning officers would comply with a strong feeling that Saturday is the most convenient day for the great body of the electors. All we want is that Saturday shall be a permissible day for polling. But what do we find? That the House of Lords have gone out of their way to prevent Saturday being available, but when the efforts of the House of Lords have failed, and when Saturday can be included in the available polling days, this recourse is had to the expedient of adjourning from Thursday to Monday, and the First Lord steps forward and jokingly says he would be happy to do what is desired, but he has given a pledge he must adhere to. I think we ought to make this perfectly clear to the electors, that a great many of them are to be disfranchised by the action of the Government. In saving this I do not pretend to be quite free from Party considerations. I have no doubt that all electors are ready to sacrifice some portion of their time and even a certain portion of their salaries to perform their duty in voting, and many of them will be the more induced to do this when they detect what I cannot help calling this shabby trick to defraud them of the constitutional rights given them. I am glad to see the Attorney General in his place. I asked him yesterday whether he confirmed the view of the First Lord with regard to the issue of the Writs by post on the day of the Dissolution Council. I asked the First Lord whether it would be possible for a returning officer to send an accredited messenger to receive the Writ, and the Attorney General confirmed the view of the First Lord that this could not be done. The Attorney General was perfectly right, but I have obtained an opinion on this matter which perhaps the House will allow me to read, showing that it is perfectly practicable with a little goodwill to bring Saturday within the polling days. This is the opinion of an ex-Attorney General who is unable to be present to day, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). He cites the different Acts which apply, and this is his conclusions:—

"It would apparently be illegal to deliver the Writ to a special messenger who would be an agent appointed by the Sheriff. It must be conveyed to the Sheriff's office or the General Post Office, as the case may be, by the officer appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Statute, 58 George III., is imperative that a messenger of the Great Seal shall forthwith—[forthwith is underlined]—carry such of the Writs as are directed to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex to their respective offices, and by the third section this direction is enlarged so as to include any Sheriff who shall hold office within the Cities of London and Westminster or the Borough of Southwark, or within five miles thereof. It seems clear, therefore, that in all London, in the wide sense, Writs must be delivered by the officer performing the duty of messenger to the Great Seal at the office of the Sheriffs on the day on which the Dissolution takes place."

I suppose the Attorney General accepts that?

That is well understood.

Well, if the Council is held at some reasonable time, and if the Writs are issued immediately to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, and they are at their offices to receive them, then three clear days will bring us up only to Friday, and an election can take place when it is desired and when it is so determined by the Sheriff on the Saturday. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who for the moment is Leader of the House, whether we are to understand that all due speed will be made at the Writ Office to forward the Writs immediately to the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, so that it may be possible to include Saturday within the permissible days for polling?

The hon. Member has again brought forward a subject which has been fully discussed more than once within the last few days—the question of including Saturday as a polling day—and he has frankly admitted that he has brought it forward to-day to serve his purpose in regard to the coming General Election.

No, I did not say that. I think that is the right hon. Gentleman's inference.

It is the natural inference to be drawn from what the hon. Member said. I do not propose again to go into the reasons why, in our opinion, Saturday is not that advantageous day for polling, so far as the great mass of the electors are concerned, which the hon. Member professes to think it is. Instances have again and again been given within the last few days to show that in cases when the polling has been fixed for a Saturday the poll has been smaller in the same constituency than when the polling has been on another day; and we know also that when Saturday has been within the available days for polling, it has rarely been availed of, just because it has been felt not to be a convenient day. As a fact, the selection of that day would dis- franchise electors of the Jewish religion, and, I think, a large number of small shopkeepers. The hon. Member does not think the latter class would be affected, and there is our difference of opinion. I am convinced that in the East End of London to fix the polling day for Saturday would disfranchise a large number of this class. I do not say they could not vote. Of course they could, but you would call upon them to do so at a considerable sacrifice of their business interests, which perhaps many of them, not such keen politicians as the hon. Member, would not be prepared to make. It is admitted that, so far as Jews are concerned, Saturday would be a disfranchising day for them. To say that the working classes do not have sufficient opportunity for voting on any day but Saturday is to ignore the facts of the case. The hours of polling have been extended to enable the working class electors to record their votes, and I do not think there is the slightest evidence of value to show there is any difficulty whatever in that respect. So we have by a Saturday poll one class certainly disfranchised, and probably a considerable portion of another class, and I find no evidence that anyone would gain by the Saturday poll. But the hon. Gentleman insists upon Saturday—

Saturday being included in the possible days.

I was about to say insists upon Saturday as our final day for sitting prior to the Dissolution; that we should adjourn to Saturday instead of Monday. Well, the answer to that has been given, and it is absolute. My right hon. Friend, as the House knows, was unwilling to name an absolute day for the Dissolution. He stated that, so far as he could foresee, it would not be later than Tuesday or Wednesday in next week; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton insisted upon a day being named absolutely. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that the right hon. Gentleman will release my right hon. Friend from that undertaking; it was far more than a personal promise. Does the hon. Member imagine that only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is interested in the decision arrived at? Is the hon. Member not aware that the fact that Tuesday was fixed was at once made known all over the country, and arrangements have been; made to carry out the necessary preliminaries in accordance with that fixture. Though the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton may be quite willing, it is quite impossible now to alter the arrangement. Even if it were possible and desirable, I think the hon. Gentleman underrates the difficulties in the way; he thinks the measures now before the House of Lords, in which possibly Amendments may be introduced, could readily be dealt with.

We will pass them all.

The hon. Member is complaisant as regards Amendments he is not aware of. But I am informed that even if the House of Lords proceed with the greatest rapidity in carrying out the duties which devolve upon them, it would not be possible to ensure a Dissolution before Tuesday. We do not think it is desirable that this House should be asked to meet on an extremely inconvenient day when no practical effect will be derived from so meeting. We think it is not possible to depart from the arrangement made; it is not practicable and it is not desirable. The hon. Member has remarked upon the House of Lords disposing of business at an early hour, and he has argued that they have no right to take up so much time with Bills now before them; but let me point out it is not a matter of so many hours each day. Bills have to go through certain stages; and although each stage may not occupy a long time in a Sitting, still it is necessary that Bills should go through the stages. It is no answer to say they can be disposed of quickly. Then the hon. Member asks if, so far as London is concerned, the Writs will be delivered on Tuesday. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of the fact that Writs must be delivered to the returning officer before four o'clock in the afternoon. There will have to be two Councils held on Tuesday—one for Prorogation and one for Dissolution—and I can quite conceive that the difficulties will be very considerable in arranging all that is necessary in order that in due course of law the Writs for London may be delivered to the returning officers before four o'clock.

I think the hon. Member for Northampton is justified in pressing this question again and to the last moment, though I have little hope that we can induce the Government to give way. We should, however, be neglecting our duty if we did not give expression to what I know to be the feeling of large masses of the electorate of London in this matter. It is a very simple matter we ask—that among the days on which the polling may take place Saturday shall be included. If hon. Members opposite think their prospect of being returned to the new House of Commons is improved by the polling being held on any other day of the week, we are willing they should have the opportunity; and no doubt the returning officers will meet their wishes in this respect. There are some constituencies in which Saturday polling is absolutely necessary. I do not speak of my own constituency when I say this, because I do not believe it will affect me very seriously whether the polling takes place on Saturday, Monday, Tuesday, or any other day; but I am satisfied that there are constituencies, especially in the East End, in which numbers of electors will be practically disfranchised if the polling takes place on any other day than Saturday, because many of them are not able to return from their work till nine or ten o'clock at night, except on that day. I do not think the people of London or of the country generally will be deluded by the statement that it is impossible for the House of Lords to get through its business in time to enable the Election to take place on a Saturday. We have seen Bills rushed through this House by suspending the Standing Orders in cases of emergency, and the same course could have been adopted in the House of Lords. Their Lordships cannot sit for a few hours longer when it is absolutely necessary, but they can find time to disport themselves at Ascot. I do not mean to say that I envy them: they are welcome to go there if they like to do so; indeed, I should not mind if they stopped there altogether.

These constant references to the House of Lords and the tone of the hon. Member are out of Order.

We have been told that it is impossible for the Bills now before their Lordships to be advanced in a more rapid way.

I was referring to the tone in which the hon. Member spoke of the Members of the other House of Legislature. It is necessary that Members of this House should treat their Lordships with respect, and the hon. Member has not treated them with respect.

I am sorry to have shocked hon. Members—

Order, order!

I will not repeat the expression I used just now. I will only say that we have instances on record in which Bills have been advanced various stages in a rapid manner through both this House and the House of Lords, and that what has been done before could have been done again, if there had been any desire on the part of the Government to have had the polling on the Saturday. I suppose it is of no use to appeal to the Government at this stage to allow the electors to poll on Saturday in those constituencies in which there is a strong desire to do so; although it must be seen that the convenience of a large number of voters in some London districts would be met by arranging that the Election should take place on that day.

I think we have a right to protest against this delay, as well as against the convenience of the whole country being subordinated to that of a few individuals. I We do not wish to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to when the Election should be held, but we think that the returning officers should be allowed to choose the day which would be most convenient for the polling. I consider that the Government have, by their action, shown a want of confidence in the returning officers. The Jews and the small shopkeepers now appear to be the only hope of the Tory Party.

I waited to see whether any of the hon. Members on the other side of the House who represent London constituencies would rise to protest against the Election not being held on the Saturday before I rose to speak on the question. It appears to me that the Government have been struck with the remarkable results of the County Council Elections in London, which were held on a Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has stated that it was a small poll; but I would ask him to compare it with the polling which took place at the previous County Council Election. He would then find that there was a considerable increase of the numbers polled this year, as against those who voted at the last election. It is perfectly clear that Saturday is the most convenient day for the working men of London to record their votes. In those districts in which there is a large Jewish population another day could, of course, be selected for the Election. The small shopkeepers would suffer no inconvenience from having the Election on a Saturday. I consider that the case set up by the First Lord of the Treasury has altogether broken down. It was well known to the Government that there was a general desire for a Saturday polling, but in spite of that they have done their best to make it impossible. Therefore I utter my protest, and I think some of the London Tory Members should do likewise.

I should like hon. Members who plead for a Saturday polling to come down to my constituency and to air their opinions on the subject in the quarter frequented by the costermongers. There are many similar constituencies throughout London and in the country. It would be found that if the polling were to take place on the Saturday it would practically mean the disfranchisement of the whole of the costermonger class. The costermongers could not vote on a Saturday, because they go out early in the morning and do not get home until ten or eleven o'clock at night. Saturday is really their harvest day. If the hon. Member for Northampton would come down to my constituency, I would take him into the costermonger quarter, and if he did not there learn a lesson I should be very much surprised.

This is a Bill to enable the Government to make a loan to British Columbia. The Colonial Government wishes to develop its fisheries, which are chiefly in the hands of natives and Chinamen, and to get white men out there in order that the fisheries may be carried on in a more scientific manner than hitherto. It is proposed to use the unfortunate crofters for the purpose. Certain statements have been made by the Government, and especially by the First Lord of the Treasury on the Second Reading of the Bill, which I have been unable to refer to before. We have been told that no crofter holdings have been taken in order to make the great deer forests, which form about three millions of acres; but if the First Lord of the Treasury will only read the evidence which was given before the Royal Commission, he will find that something very different is the case. The Rev. Angus McRae, minister of the Free Church of Scotland, Glen Urquhart, Inverness-shire, gave the following evidence before the Commission:—

"I beg to submit to the Royal Commission that there has been a decrease of the population of this parish during the last 'census decade' of 342 in a population of 2,438, which I ascribe principally to our large deer forests. The late laird of Glenmoriston, who was one of the kindest and most humane proprietors in the North, erred latterly in adopting the system of turning farms into deer forests; but it is to be hoped that the young heir will reverse this system as soon as he gets full possession of the estate. The deer forest of Balmacaan, in Glen Urquhart, is about twenty miles in length, and is rented for £3,000 per annum; to this forest a great deal of good land has been added, even within the last sixteen years, besides the large tracts that were added to it at different periods formerly. About the year 1867 the whole township of Balmacaan where there were over twenty families who were living pretty comfortably, had to be turned out in a body, as the place was to be added directly to the forest."

The witness goes on to give details, and then says—

"Of course, there was a small forest above the ordinary pasture, from time immemorial, but recently there has been added to it the grazing of about ten thousand sheep."

The Rev. James Bain, the Rev. Roderick Morison, ministers of the Established Church in Duthill, Inverness-shire, and Kintail, Ross-shire, also gave evidence of the effects of the deer forest system in the country, and the evidence generally shows that the right hon. Gentleman has made assertions which are the reverse of the truth in regard to the matter. So far as even the Island of Lewis is concerned, the evidence given before the Commission shows that the people there thirty years ago were much more comfortable than they are at the present time: and I would ask the House to listen to the statement made by the Rev. Malcolm McRitchie, minister of the Free Church at Knock. Stornoway. He said—

"Having been born in Lewis in the year 1803, and since intimately acquainted with every part of it, allow me to submit the following statement bearing upon the condition of the island as a whole, as contrasted with what existed within my own memory; and also a more particular statement as to the condition of things in the quoad sacra Parish of Knock, in which I have laboured for many years as a minister of the Gospel, and at a former period as teacher. My recollections of Lewis go back for seventy years, and I well remember the comfortable circumstances of the large population that then inhabited my native Parish of Uig. The population of the parish then would be about three thousand, as against the present population of 3,489: but how different the comfort and the circumstances of the population of sixty years ago! All the people were then in a state of comparative comfort, having arable land, and hill pasture for sheep and cattle, whereas now poverty and want largely predominate. Increase of population cannot here be the cause of the immense difference in the condition of the people. The present population of 3,489 is only some 448 more than fifty years ago, when the parish had a population of 3,041, and when the circumstances of the people were much more comfortable, and this is so in the face of the large increase in the value of the fishing industry since 1831, affording a source of income to the people many times larger now than it was then. Why, then, the unfavourable condition of the people as contrasted with their condition then? Simply because the large reaches of pasture ground then in their possession have been taken from the people since, and are formed into sheep walks and deer forests without any abatement of rents formerly charged, yea, with increase in many cases."

After giving facts which are very important, he goes on to say—

"Close upon 23,000 of the crofter population in Lewis pay only about £8,200 of the £20,000 rental yielded by the island, while the other £12,000 are paid by a few large farmers and sportsmen. The soil in possession of the large farmers is by far the best in Lewis, and yields, considering its quality, a far lower rent than the portion in possession of the crofters. The best of the land was taken for the purpose of forming those large farms, and the crofters were driven from them and huddled together on inferior ground."

Another minister of the Established Church, the Rev. Angus Maciver, of Stornoway, says of the crofters—

"Fifty or forty years ago they were quite comfortable and able to live well, but now they find it very difficult to make, a bare living. The population has increased enormously for the last forty years, and instead of the proprietors seeing to the comfort of these people by giving them more lands, they have just been deprived of them in proportion to the increase, and these made into sheep farms and deer forests. The result now is a congestion of population in the various districts where they reside: and unless a very decided change takes place soon, a chronic state of destitution will be the consequence."

This evidence, it will be seen, is entirely opposite to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, again, the Report of the Royal Commission gives details with reference to four parishes as typical of the whole. The parishes chosen for the purpose are those of Farr in Sutherland, Uig in Lewis. Duirmish in Skye, and South Uist in the Long Island.

I rise to Order. Is it right that the House should endure this extended argument when the hon. Member has driven the whole of the Members on his own side out of the House?

The hon. Member has referred to the costermongers in his constituency; he should listen to the grievances which I have no doubt they would like to ventilate. I am engaged in bringing forward statements to show the mistakes which have been made and the fallacies of the arguments which have been urged in support of this proposal. The Royal Commission state in their Report that, taking the four typical parishes I have referred to, it appears that out of 3,266 families 309 depend upon the cultivation of the soil; that 825 families, comprising more than one-fourth of the population, are without land, and without regular access to local wages; and that thirty occupiers, or less than one per cent. of the whole community, are in the occupation of nearly two-thirds of the land. Now, this is a state of things that cannot go on. I contend that the Government are simply making the parishes into a pauper warren, and seriously affecting the moral standard of the people. The amount of this loan is a mere drop in the bucket. The only way to provide a remedy is to break up the large grazing and sporting tracts of land, and to restore the people to it. There is as good land in Caithness as anywhere, except in America, and the crofters can live upon it if allowed to do so. But they are paying higher rents than they are here. The right hon. Gentleman has an estate, but like a wise man he is selling it before this deer business bursts. In the eastern portion of the Highlands there is plenty of room, and the people are not satisfied, and ought not to be satisfied, until they have a chance of living comfortably in their own country. In Caithness the arable farms are so large that the railway will take you five or six miles through one immense farm, all arable and all cultivated. But take the cultivated land of Caithness, the best half is in the occupation of twenty-five persons; the remaining and worse half being left to 25,000 occupiers. Retribution, however, is taking place. The men who have improved the estates and made large farms are now ruined, and the bulk of their estates are in the hands of Trustees; while the £10 and £20 men are living comfortably, owning the land and getting a decent return from it. The men who have made improvements are not receiving from them three per cent. I will not oppose the Bill further, because I believe it may be useful to a section other than the crofters—the men who are fishermen only. These are the men who are wanted for the development of the Columbian fisheries, and I shall watch the experiment with interest, as you are endeavouring to relieve fishing congestion. I trust that both Governments will see that any company which is formed makes proper preparations in order that these people may not be exposed to hardships on their arrival.