I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Japan have received the mandate of all the Powers to undertake the relief, if possible, of the Legations and the suppression of the disturbances in Northern China, and have accepted the proposal.

The Government of Japan have received assurances from Her Majesty's Government that the prompt despatch by them of a large force to Ta-ku would be welcomed by us; that no objection has been raised by any European Power to this course. Negotiations are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to make a further statement.

Am I right in assuming the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the request to Japan was unanimous on the part of the Powers?

Has the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs any information about China?

NO, Sir. I am afraid we have nothing to add to the news already in the possession of the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Papers respecting the affairs in China, in continuation of those issued in March, and bringing information up to the date of recent events, will be laid before Parliament; and how soon this will be done.

Papers will be prepared as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state how many officers borne on the books of Her Majesty's ships on the China station can speak any language other than English; and can he give the number of those on the station who have qualified as interpreters in Russian, French, or German respectively.

Of the officers borne on the ships on the China station there are three qualified as interpreters in French, two in German, and one in Russian. As to how many more officers may possess a knowledge of languages other than their own I cannot say. We have no complete Returns on the subject. We know of twelve said to speak French and two German.

To what branch of the Navy does the Russian interpreter belong?

I must ask for notice of any further question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the serious complications in China, the Government are prepared to negotiate for a cessation of the war in South Africa, guaranteeing the independence of the South African Republics.

We do not propose to modify our South African policy in consequence of any events outside South Africa.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to lay upon the Table at an early date a Return showing the amounts of the. various classes of warlike stores borrowed by the Army from the Navy for the purposes of the campaign in South Africa.

It is impossible to get the information at the present moment.

Can we not have it down to the end of last year?

If the hon. Gentleman will put that question down I will inquire.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether two persons, named Vander Valt and Boogsen, were recently tried and convicted by a court-martial at Colesberg, in Cape Colony; could he state to the House with what offence or offences they were charged, what were the sentences imposed by the court-martial, and did the Attorney General of the colony report against the justice of the conviction in either or both of these cases; have the sentences been since reduced, and by what authority and on what grounds; and can he say whether military tribunals are still taking cognisance of offences against the criminal law of the colony, notwithstanding that the ordinary courts of the country are and have for some time been open.

I have received a request from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies that I should address this question to the Under Secretary for War, but, with every possible respect for that hon. Gentleman, I must decline to do so, because I regard the Secretary of State for the Colonies as the proper guardian of the civil rights of Her Majesty's subjects in the Cape Colony. I shall therefore repeat the question, with all respect, on Monday.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has or can procure the names of the men, as well as officers, of the 13th Imperial Yeomanry and other corps who are prisoners of war at Nooitgedacht, and information as to their food, shelter, and clothing, and as to any sick and wounded among them, also whether he has any information as to the effect of the place of their imprisonment and treatment on their health and life.

Consul General Crowe has obtained a partial list of the British prisoners in Boer hands. This was forwarded by telegraph and published to-day. Consul Crowe has been instructed to forward by cable any further names which he may obtain. The War Office has no official information as to the health of the prisoners, but is aware that Consul Crowe has taken active steps to supply them with medicines, necessaries, clothing, and money. The latest information which has reached the Government points to a general amelioration of their condition.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the account, now in the possession of the War Office, giving the details of the surrender of the 4th Battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment, has been withheld from publication.

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by the first Lord of the Treasury to the Leader of the Opposition.†

Then am I to understand that these documents will be furnished in due course? That was the trend of the First Lord's reply.

I am, perhaps, venturing too much in speaking only from memory, but I think my right hon. friend said that he would confer with the Secretary of State as to the publication of the despatches.

May I ask the First Lord whether he did not say yesterday that these documents would be published in due course?

Order, order! That is an irregular question.

I knew it was.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it was the absolute duty of Lord Methuen to guard the railway between Roodeval and America, which was destroyed by the Boer forces in the raid upon the line of communications in which the 4th Battalion of the Sherwood Foresters were surrounded and taken prisoners on the 7th June; whether Lord Methuen with a reconstituted division was upwards of twenty miles from the scene of the raid on the railway, and had

† See page 622 of this volume.

temporarily abandoned the task of guarding the railway in order to take supplies to General Colville at Heilbron; and whether it is proposed to hold an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the officer or officers to whom the responsibity of the rout and surrender of a whole battalion at Roodoval appertains.

I am unable to answer the first two questions. With regard to the third, it is for Lord Roberts to decide whether an investigation is necessary.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether General Colville has been removed from his command in South Africa; and, if so, upon what grounds.

No information has boon received on this subject in the War Office.

Will the Secretary of State make inquiries, or will it be left to the discretion of Lord Roberts?

The hon. Member must have gathered that it is not the policy of the Government to ask Lord Roberts for an explanation of every piece of telegraphic news the meaning of which is not immediately apparent.

I will put a question to the First Lord on Monday.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether instructions will be given without delay to reduce the postage of letters to all persons in the Orange River Colony to one penny per half-ounce.

The Postmaster General is awaiting the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is' aware that since the Report of the Committee on the various War Funds was issued the Patriotic-Commissioners have reduced the allowance of 5s. per week given by them to-widows previous to such Report to the sum of 3s. per week; and whether, as the Committee contemplated, as is shown in the Report, that larger rather than smaller sums should be granted by the Patriotic Commissioners, the Government are prepared to advise the abolition of the said Commissioners, and whether the Government are willing to provide adequately for the wives and dependents of those who lose their lives in the service of their country.

I am in receipt of a communication, from the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, which deals with the third part of my hon. friend's question. The Commissioners say that the widows placed on the Transvaal War Fund have not had any different treatment meted out to them since the issue of the Report of the War Funds Commission. A small proportion of the total number of widows on the fund have had their allowances altered both before and since the issue of the Report by reason of their having been granted permanent annuities of a substantial character from overlapping local funds; and it would be unfair to other widows if such further allowances were not taken into account by the Commissioners. But the Commissioners have undertaken to frame a scheme of allowances for all widows when the war is over, and when the number of applications has been definitely ascertained. As to the second paragraph of my hon. friend's question, he is probably aware that the Government have pledged themselves to deal with the question of making provision for all widows and orphans.

May I ask: whether that is the answer of the Patriotic Commissioners or of the right hon. Gentleman's own? Because, in the former case, I take leave to question its accuracy.

I beg to. ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a boy named Patrick Walsh, whose regimental number is 6,106, enlisted in the 1st Battalion Royal Minister Fusiliers in October, 1898, and that prior to his last enlistment he joined the Army, but was discharged in March, 1898, being then under fourteen years of ago; whether he can state if Patrick Walsh is now serving as a soldier in South Africa; and whether, seeing that he is now only sixteen years old, his immediate discharge from the Army will be granted in accordance with the request of his parents.

The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. When they were made known to the War Office last November a letter was sent to the General Officer commanding the Cork district, in which his attention was called to the case, and explanations from the officers concerned were demanded. These explanations were received. The Approving Officer expresses unqualified regret, and states in extenuation that Private Walsh when enlisted presented the appearance of maturity. He further states that he has often had occasion to question the correctness of birth certificates, and has even been in correspondence with the Registrar General in Ireland on the subject. The medical officer is so strongly of the same opinion with regard to the maturity of the youth the examined that he believes personation has taken place. The recruiting officer admits the possibility of error, and points out that in 1899 500 recruits were accepted and 300 rejected in his district, and that Walsh's name is a very common one in Listowel, where he was enlisted. It is an unsatisfactory case The boy seems to have been determined to enter the Army, and as he is now in South Africa it is impossible to discharge him before the end of the war; but his father has been been directed to apply again as soon as the war is over.

Has a boy fourteen years of age arrived at maturity for war purposes? Why was information refused to his parents whop they applied at the War Office?

The question raises the points with which I have attempted to deal. The boy's height, weight, and chest measurement were all abnormal, so that it was easy to mistake his age.

He must be valuable for the front, then.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that members of the London Scottish Volunteers who are employed at the Central Telegraph Office, London, have been refused leave of absence to attend camps of military instruction; and will he have inquiry made into the matter with a view to a short term of leave being granted.

Every effort is made to enable officers of the Post Office who are Volunteers to attend camps of instruction this year; but owing to the large number of officers who have been withdrawn for service in South Africa, it is not possible, with due regard to the exigencies of the service, to allow more than a limited number to go.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British delegate to the International Fisheries Conference, held at Stockholm last year, has made any report of those proceedings to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether it will be issued as a Parliamentary Paper.

A Report has been received and the question of its publication will be considered when the correspondence between the British and Swedish Governments has been concluded.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Swedish Government, some mouths ago, communicated to Her Majesty's Government, the other North Sea Powers, and Russia, that it accepted the programme of the International Fisheries Conference held at Stockholm last year, and is resolved, in case of agreement on the part of the other Governments interested, to ask from the Riksdag the funds necessary to carry it out; whether favourable replies have been received by the Swedish Government from the Governments of Norway and Germany concerning the co-operation proposed by the Stockholm Conference; and whether any, and, if so, what, reply has been made by Her Majesty's Government to this communication from the Swedish Government.

As I stated in answer to a question on 1st May, communications are at present passing between the British and Swedish Governments with regard to the participation of Great Britain in certain investigations concerning the fishing industry which were recommended by the Conference. These communications are not yet completed, and I am therefore not able to make a more definite statement.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries have ascertained and have stated, at page 105 of their Report for 1897, that the diminution in the number of sea fish, such as cod and haddock, on the coasts of the United States is accompanied by a depletion of anadromous fishes, such as the salmon, which leave the sea at certain seasons for the rivers: and that it appears that any measures tending to restore the anadromous fishes to their former abundance will also improve the coast fisheries; and will he consider whether any steps can be taken to improve the sea fisheries of the English, Scotch, and Irish coasts by measures tending to restore the anadroms which frequent the rivers of Ireland.

No, Sir, I am not. The passage which my hon. friend has quoted with some considerable approach to accuracy is an expression of opinion by Mr. Charles H. Stevenson, contained in an appendix to the Report for 1898 of the Commissioner for Fish and Fisheries. The question whether any measures can be taken to add to the number of anadroms in the rivers of Ireland is being at present considered by a Viceregal Commission. It is impossible for me to say whether any steps can be taken to improve the sea fisheries of the English, Scotch and Irish coasts by such measures until I know what such measures are.

Will the right hon. Gentleman wait for the Report of that Commission before proceeding with the Undersized Fish Bill?

No, Sir; that Bill does not deal with anadroms.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say the direct connection between the scarcity of one and. the scarcity of the other?

did not reply.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, for the information of Irish Members interested in fisheries, what an anadromous fish is?

It is a fish which lives sometimes in the sea and sometimes in the river.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will be good enough to state whether communication between the East Goodwin light-vessel and the main land by wireless telegraphy, for life-saving purposes, is in working order; and, if not, whether he will explain the grounds of delay; and whether he is aware that the system in question is in constant use for life-saving and commercial purposes between the Borkum light-vessel, twenty miles from the receiving station on the main land.

The wireless telegraphy communication between the East Goodwin light-vessel and the mainland was established for experimental purposes, only, and has now been discontinued. I am not aware of the exact nature of the system in use on the Borkum light-vessel. The question of using a system of wireless telegraphy for purposes of communication with lighthouses and light-vessels is before an Inter-Departmental Committee, who have very difficult questions, of patent rights to consider.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to. the fact that the principal railway companies decided some time since to adopt the brake system of communication between railway passengers and the guard, will he state the names of the companies now using this system.

I am not in the possession of exhaustive information on the subject, but I will take steps to obtain it, and communicate with the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there is any statute or regulation debarring Post Office servants, who are also officers of their trade unions, from exercising the right of approach to candidates for Parliament possessed by ordinary citizens and officials of other organisations.

No distinction, of course, is drawn in this respect between a Post Office servant who is an officer of a trade union and one who is not. All Post Office servants, like all other members of the Civil Service of the Crown, are necessarily required to serve with equal fidelity under whatever political party may for the time be in power, and are therefore expected not to take any public part in supporting or opposing any particular candidate or party. This is specially necessary in the case of those who are brought into daily contact, in the discharge of their official duties, with all sections of the public, as most of the Post Office servants are. No statute and no regulation exists debarring any Post Office servant from approaching candidates for Parliament; but it is, of course, within the discretion of the Postmaster General, as it would be in the discretion of the head of any other Department of the State, to frame such a regulation if he considers it necessary in the public interest.

Does the right Hon. Gentleman's answer refer to officials as well as members of trades unions?

It applies to all in the Postal service, whether they belong to trades unions or not.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the delay in the transit of the Australian mails per Orient Steam Navigation Company's steamers from Naples to London; and whether the mails by the Orient steamer which arrived at Naples on Friday last have yet been delivered in London; and, if so, will he state when, the mails left Naples and when they arrived in London.

The transit through, Italy and France of the Australian mails landed at Naples is the subject of special attention; and continued effort is made to prevent delay in that service. The last homeward Orient packet arrived at, Naples not on Friday but on Saturday last, and the mails were despatched from Naples shortly before midnight. Through irregularities, however, in the Italian railway service they did not reach London till Tuesday night, and the London correspondence was delivered on Wednesday morning. Representations have been made to the Italian Post Office on the subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue instructions, to the sheriff clerks in Scotland to receive the inventories and expede confirmations in favour of the executors of persons entitled to the benefits conferred by Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900, without requiring estate duty to be first paid in all cases where the estate would, otherwise be liable to the fixed duty of thirty shillings or fifty shillings, and thus imposing on the executors the burden of recovering this duty later on.

The procedure suggested would not be possible in cases falling under Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900, as the remission therein provided is conditional upon the discretion of the Treasury acting upon a recommendation of the Secretary of State or of the Admiralty, and it would be obviously impossible for sheriff clerks to know antecedently whether such discretion would be exercised.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that under Section 4, sub-section (f), of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, the Congested Districts Board is empowered to provide guarantees for telegraph extensions or such other postal facilities (including money order and savings bank business) as may be within the power of the Postmaster General to grant under guarantee; and in view of the fact that in some parts of the congested districts the Postmaster General has not felt himself justified in granting the postal deliveries sought by the inhabitants on the ground that they might result in a loss to the Revenue, will he state whether he would consider the expediency of providing such facilities if the Congested Districts Board undertook to guarantee the Department against loss under the section above referred to.

The Postmaster General is aware of the statutory provisions referred to. If the Congested Districts Board see fit to make any proposal in the sense indicated by the hon. Member it will receive the Postmaster General's careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the Lewis and Harris Association, and from nine other Highland associations, urging that the line fishing industry in Highland and Hebridean waters is imperfectly protected from the depredations of illegal trawlers, and, in view of the fact that the associations suggest that one or two swift boats, capable of putting to sea in any ordinary weather, should be placed on police duty round the shores of the Hebrides and adjacent mainland, will he state whether the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of acting on the suggestion.

The memorial was received two days ago, and is udder consideration, and a reply will be sent in due course.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the Stornoway Burgh Commissioners pointing out that under the Education (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament moneys which are now applied in relief of the rates will be used for the purpose of secondary education; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in regard to the Commissioners' suggestion that the Congested Districts Board should be empowered to apply a portion of the moneys at its disposal to the purposes of secondary education, so that congested areas, such as the parish of Stornoway and Island of Lewis, where the rates are higher than in other districts in Scotland, may be relieved of the increased burdens imposed by the Bill.

The Secretary for Scotland has received the memorial containing the suggestion for an Amendment to the Education Bill referred to by the hon. Member. It appears, however, to his Lordship that, apart from the merits of the proposal, it is not one which could readily be inserted in the Education Bill, but would require separate legislation, which he is not at this period of the session prepared to initiate.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that experiments made by Mr. O'Sullivan, of Athea, county Limerick, show that the yield of a potato crop may be increased to the extent of 80 per cent.; and will he have some inquiries made into the matter with a view to similar experiments by the Congested Districts Board for Scotland.

On the information supplied there does not seem sufficient evidence in favour of the proposal to come under any obligation regarding it.

Seeing that the Irish Agricultural Department are inquiring, why should not the Scottish Board do the same?

Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain from the Irish. Department any information it may have obtained?

I have said there does not seem sufficient evidence to justify one coming under any Obligation regarding it.

I bog to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what progress is being made with the Fishery Board's new cruiser, and when she will be ready for service.

I am informed by the Fishery Hoard that satisfactory progress has been made with the new cruiser, and it is fully anticipated that she will be completed within the period mentioned in the contract—namely, the 20th December next.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the triple duty has been reintroduced in the Dublin sorting office, under a system by which officers perform three attendances, amounting in the aggregate to eight and a half or nine hours, the excess over eight ours being paid for as overtime; and whether an arrangement could be made to confine the number of attendances to two per day, in accordance with recent decisions, and in the event of a third attendance being necessary, the same to be paid for as overtime.

The triple duty has not been reintroduced into the Dublin sorting office, but a few of the sorting clerks are occasionally required to attend three times a day in cases of exceptional pressure, and they are then paid at the usual rates for extra duty for all attendance in excess of eight hours, in accordance with the regulations. No departure from this rule would he warranted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state why the use of the old post office in Cootehill, county Cavan, has been discontinued; whether he is aware that the old office was confined to postal work, whilst the new office is part of an apothecary's shop; and can he say at what cost the fixtures of the office were removed, and by whom the cost will be borne.

The use of the premises in which the post office business was formerly carried on at Cootehill has been discontinued because a new sub-postmaster has been appointed who docs not reside on those premises. The former sub-postmistress carried on no other business than that of the post office, whilst the new sub-postmaster is a chemist —but provides proper accommodation for the post office work. The question whether the fixtures formerly in use should be taken over by the new sub-postmaster is entirely a matter for arrangement between the former and present holder of the appointment.

But why is the new postmaster to be allowed to carry on his business, whereas his predecessor had to give hers up and devote her whole time to the work of the post office?

I am told that that is not the case, and that the late sub-postmistress had no business at all.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there was due compliance with the rule which requires publication of intention and notice to the police in the matter of a new licence or transfer of licence, in the case wherein Mr. Leslie, agent of the Dartrey estate, recently obtained a transfer at Rockcorry petty sessions; is he aware that the original applicant for this transfer was a person named Clarke, and that Mr. Leslie left the bench and had Clarke's name removed from the application and his own substituted; can he say whether Clarke or Mr. Leslie is the tenant of the premises to which the licence is attached; and, if Mr. Leslie, does that gentleman, in compliance with the requirements of the law, sleep on the premises; if Clarke, how can that person trade and receive spirits under permit in his own name while the licence is in the name of Leslie; can he explain why one of the magistrates who granted the permit was drawn from the Castleblayney petty sessions district, and had he power to act; and will any action be taken in this case.

There was no obligation to give the police the notice referred to in the first paragraph, and the notice was not given. I have no information as to the second and third paragraphs. The magistrate referred to in the fourth paragraph is presumably Mr. McCabe. He is a justice for the county Monaghan. As I have already stated, the Executive do not propose to take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the burial grounds in the Arran Islands, Galway; is he aware that the caretaker on one of the burial grounds instead of protecting it actually lets the grass for grazing purposes, and allows the wire fences put up at considerable expense by the local authority to be destroyed; can he state whether there is a caretaker for the second burial ground; whether it is the duty of the Local Government Board Inspector to visit these burial grounds from time to time and see that the public health is not endangered by their unsanitary condition; and how often the inspector has visited these islands during the last twelve months.

Representations have been made to the Local Government Board by the Rev. Mr. Farragher, P.P., respecting the condition of these burial grounds, and the Board are in communication with the Galway Rural District Council on the subject. The matters to which the rev. gentleman has drawn attention relate rather to defects in connection with the caretaking, such as the failure to paint the gates and to prevent injury to the wire fences, etc., and it has not been alleged that any danger to the public health is involved such as is suggested in the question. The matter is entirely one for the local authority to deal with, and the Board's inspectors do not visit local graveyards unless their attention is specially directed to their condition. I am unable to say how often the inspector visited the islands during the past year at such short notice.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Torquay Division of Devonshire, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a speech made by Lord Emly at Limerick on the 29th ult., which, if correctly reported, would constitute an incitement to commit a broach of the peace; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.

My attention has been directed to a newspaper report of the speech in question, which, as reported, is of the character mentioned. The meeting at which the speech was delivered was, however, held indoors, and there is no evidence forthcoming of the. language used on the occasion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, prior to the Local Government Board Order of 15th May, 1899, the area of charge for maintenance of Enniskillen cemetery was not the electoral division of Enniskillen, which then comprised the present district electoral divisions of Enniskillen urban and Enniskillen rural, and that by Article 1 of the above Order the area of charge in future for the cemetery is Rural District No. 1, which does not comprise the district electoral division of Enniskillen urban, and. as the Local Government Board have refused to alter that Order, will he take steps to include Enniskillen urban division in the chargeable area, as the cemetery has been since its opening used almost. entirely by inhabitants of the said town, and was provided to meet their requirements, one of the town graveyards having been closed by order of the sanitary authority.

The graveyard is situated in the rural district, and. is vested in the rural district council. The Board have been advised that the expenses incurred by the rural district council, as a burial board, should be charged on and paid out of the poor rates of the rural district. The Local Government Board cannot include the urban district in the area of charge so long as the burial ground remains the property of the rural district council. The rural and urban district councils have been advised by the Board to consider the question of transferring the cemetery to the urban district.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the arbitrator, in reference to the scheme of labourers' cottages in Carrickmacross Union, now nearly completed, made the following charges—namely, correspondence with clerk, one hour, 10s. 6d.; travelling, four hours, £2 2s.; rail to Carrickmacross, £1 1s. 4d.; one night from homo, £1 1s.; hearing claims, ten hours, £3 3s.; inspecting sites and back to Belfast, nine hours, £3 3s.; making up valuation and forming award, six hours, £3 3s.; completing award, four hours, £2 2s.; whether he can explain why in one instance that the arbitrator charged 10s. 6d. per hour, and in another 6s. 4d. per hour, whether the arbitrator can charge what he pleases, and if he is a servant of the Government; and whether he can state if the Local Government Board received any of the money in the arbitrator's account charged to the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians, and whether he will inquire into these charges with a view to a refund.

The expenses of the arbitrator are accurately set forth in the first paragraph. The apparent discrepancy referred to in the second paragraph is thus explained: the usual fee is £3 3s. per day of not less than six hours, which is equivalent to 10s. 6d. per hour, whereas the arbitrator charged that fee in respect of one day of ten hours work, which was equivalent to 6s. 4d. per hour. The arbitrator's expenses are paid according to scale, and he cannot charge what he pleases. He is not a paid servant of the Government. The whole of the amount was paid to the arbitrator himself, and no portion was received by the Department. The guardians were invited to submit any objections to the payment of the account. Apparently, however, they considered the charges reasonable, for they at once paid the arbitrator the full amount of his claim. It is not intended to make any further inquiry in the matter.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- land whether he is aware that the shorthand writer charged the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians £25 5s. during the last inquiry in reference to the erection of labourers' cottages in that union; and whether he can state if the sum mentioned was charged by scale, or if he can explain how this account was made up.

The account referred to in the first paragraph was furnished in relation to an inquiry held in April, 1898. The charges made by the shorthand writer were strictly in accordance with scale.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as in the new scheme proposed by the National Board of Education in Ireland the six head inspectors are reduced to the same rank as sixteen of the subordinates who have been serving under them, he can state if this reduction also involves a loss in certain emoluments which attached to their office, and whether it is intended also to prevent the head inspectors in future from reaching the higher offices which have hitherto been open to them; and have the head inspectors protested against this change in the conditions upon which they entered the service, is it the intention of the Commission to compel them to accept the change without any compensation, and will the whole scheme of the Commissioners be laid before Parliament before being finally adopted.

The six head inspectors have not been reduced in rank, though their title has been altered and their sphere of duties somewhat changed; but sixteen district inspectors have been promoted to the same rank as the head inspectors. Both the salaries and the possible pensions of the head inspectors have been considerably increased. The old scale of salaries commenced at £500. The maximum was £600. The maximum of the new scale of their salaries is £700, an increase of £100 per annum, or 16·6 per cent. The highest possible pension a. head inspector could obtain under the old scale was £400 per annum. Under the. new scale he can obtain a pension of £466 13s. 4d., an increase of £66 13s. 4d per annum, or 16·6 per cent. No change has been made in the rates of travelling expenses or of personal allowance to these officers. It has never been contemplated that these allowances were to be a source of additional emolument to the officers receiving them, but were merely to cover actual expenses out of pocket. The Commissioners have made no new rules in regard to the higher offices in their gift, in the filling of which they have always exercised, and will continue to exercise, their own unfettered discretion. The head inspectors made certain representations to the Commissioners in regard to their change of title from head inspectors to that of senior inspectors, the contemplated changes in the duties to be in future assigned to them, and the possible loss of emoluments from perquisites derived from their allowances. These representations were fully considered. No change whatever has been made in the conditions under which those inspectors entered the service, except that, as already stated, their actual and prospective salaries have been improved. The change in the regulations regarding the inspectorate, which are for the benefit of all the inspectors (including the six officers referred to in the question), and also for the benefit of the great body of the teachers, have been carefully considered in detail by the Irish Government, the Treasury, and the Commissioners, and have been fully approved generally in connection with the entire new scheme.

When will the new scheme be published?

I cannot say precisely.

Will it be in the hands of hon. Members before the Vote is taken?

I will endeavour to secure that.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it absolutely necessary that the Irish Members should be in possession of the scheme before they discuss the Vote?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Irish National school teachers will be paid by way of usual result fees such sums of money as will compensate them fully for the educational instruction given by said teachers in their several schools as from the date of their last examinations up to the 31st March, 1900, between which dates they have received no result fees.

Results fees were abolished from the 31st March, 1900. Every teacher will, however, receive an equivalent payment for result fees that would have accrued up to the 31st March last had the results system continued in operation. This has been explained to the teachers and managers by a circular letter from the Education Office.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state upon what grounds payment of the salary of the assistant teacher of the National school at Ardstraw, in the county of Tyrone, which accrued between 1st October, 1898, and 1st January, 1899, was withheld, although the required average of sixty pupils was more than maintained during that period, and although payment of such salaries on an average of sixty pupils was sanctioned by the Treasury as from 1st October, 1898.

I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the salary of the assistant teacher of the National school at Ardstraw for the quarter ended 31st December, 1898, has not been paid because the claim made by the manager was not from 1st October, but from 1st August, 1898, and such claim cannot be allowed. Before the 1st October, 1898, a quarterly average attendance of seventy pupils was required for recognition of an assistant, and this condition was not fulfilled. A claim for salary from 1st October, 1898, if made, will be favourably considered.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the meeting of the Munster Dairy School and Agricultural Institute at Cork on the 2nd instant; and whether, in view of the general testimony as to the valuable results in respect to the dairying industry brought about by the instruction given in that school and by the employment of itinerant dairy instructors, and of the statement of the President, the Department of Agriculture will undertake to give equal encouragement to the dairying industry as to the creamery system.

Attention has been drawn to the report of the meeting held on 2nd instant in connection with the Munster Institute. The Department fully intends that in the development of the Institute every feature of its work which has been found of utility to the farming community, such as intinerant dairy instruction, will be continued. The Department will give due attention to all forms of the dairying industry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that, as deposed to by Dr. Moriarty and also by Governor Andrews at the recent inquest on Andrew Cull, at! Cork Prison, the doctor of a prison has the right to report to the Prisons Board that any prisoner suffering from ill-health should be discharged where the doctor believed further imprisonment would endanger the prisoner's life; whether, as also deposed to by the doctor, there were occasions when his recommendations for the discharge of prisoners because of ill-health were ignored by the Dublin Castle authorities; and will he cause inquiries to be made in this matter.

It is the duty of the medical officer of a prison, when he considers a prisoner's life to be in danger by further confinement, to at once report his opinion to the Prisons Board. The medical officer of Cork Prison states he has recommended the discharge of one or two prisoners, although the Lord Lieutenant did not consider there were sufficient grounds for acting upon the recommendation. As I have already stated, the exercise of the power to discharge a prisoner is vested in the Lord Lieutenant alone, and the question whether a recommendation of the medical officer in this respect should be acted upon is one entirely for his Excellency's decision. I see no reasons for directing any further inquiry in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what amount of arrears were due on the farm from which Hussey was evicted on the Warden property; whether the arrears due accrued during the tenancy of Hussey's predecessors; and whether he can state if Hussey, prior to his eviction by Mr. Warden, offered to pay twelve months arrears, and if so, whether this offer of Hussey was accepted by the landlord, and will he cause inquiry to be made in this case.

The arrears due on the holding from which Hussey was evicted amounted to £11 12s. 6d. He had paid no rent, I believe, since he was put into the farm as sub-tenant. I have no information as to the last paragraph.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this man did not offer twelve months arrears of rent?

I have no information on that point.

I will repeat the question.

It is of no use doing that. I have no power in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-land whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused to fishermen and injury to their boats for the want of a perch or buoy in the Caherciveen river, and that communications have taken place between fishermen in the district and several Government public boards in connection with this matter; and whether, seeing that Kerry County Council unanimously passed a resolution requesting the Government Department to take action in the matter, he will take such steps as may be necessary for the erection of the perch or buoy for the better security of fishermen and their boats. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Kerry County Council unanimously passed a resolution asking that the Government should erect a buoy or perch on certain rocks in Valencia Harbour—namely, to perch a rock known as Lackavallig, and also to place a bell buoy on a sunken rock almost opposite Valencia Island lighthouse, and northwest of Begrish Island; and whether, seeing that the absence of this perch and bell buoy causes danger to life and property in the districts mentioned, he will give a favourable consideration to the request.

The resolutions of the county council, to which reference is made, were considered by the Congested Districts Board at their meeting held in April last, when it was decided that the Board could not undertake either of the works mentioned. The Board have been advised that the works could only be carried out by a local lighthouse authority within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that inconvenience and hardship is caused to a number of fishermen in the surrounding districts owing to the unfinished state of the Roads boat slip, in South Kerry; and whether, having regard to the fact that a portion of the people have to subsist on the fishing industry, steps will be taken to give the fishermen improved facilities at the Roads boat slip for the safe launching and landing of fishing boats and better security of human life.

The question of effecting improvements in the boat slip at Roads is at present under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland if his attention has been called to the losses suffered by Irish farmers owing to the pilfering and wholesale robbery of their butter and other produce during its transit to customers in England; and whether the Department can devise some means, either by the appointment of an official to supervise all rates and charges or some other way, by which such losses can be prevented.

The attention of the Department has been directed to complaints of the character mentioned in the question. The matter is at present under the consideration of the Department.

I rise to move a reduction of this Vote in connection with the sum devoted to the Congested Districts Board; and I have put down the notice of reduction in order to indicate that we who represent northern constituencies in Scotland have something like a Scottish grievance in connection with the action of the Congested Districts Board generally. In May last^* this Committee sat to consider a proposal to vote a grant in aid to this very Board, and on that occasion I made some comments on the action of that Board which could scarcely be construed as in any degree favourable to it. However, it is right I should point out that there was no Report on the action of the Board in the hands of the members of the Committee at the time the Vote was brought under debate. The Lord Advocate, in his reply, accused me of making irresponsible charges, of speaking in ignorance, and of using wild and rash language. I make no complaint person ally with regard to that. So far as I am concerned, I pay no attention to it at all. But there was much more than a mere personal element in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because, if the

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiii., page 649.

charges I made were irresponsible, if I spoke in ignorance, and if I used wild and rash language, it is perfectly obvious that the only inference to be drawn is that there was no foundation for those charges, and that they ought never to have been made. Now, this House has, and, indeed, ought to possess, great power over the public purse, and I cannot help thinking it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs when you have a Government coming to the House and asking for money before it has produced any Report on the action of the Board by which that money is to be spent. It is obvious, if the Government will not publish Reports before Votes are taken, that it is impossible for Members who are asked to discuss the Vote to be thoroughly possessed of the facts which are in the possession of the Government. I certainly cannot understand why we should not have had the Report before the grant was asked for, seeing that the Lord Advocate had a copy of it in his hand and treated the Committee for about three-quarters of an hour to a lecture based on the very document which had been withheld from the members of the Committee. He said that the charges I made were irresponsible. By that I understood him to mean that they were of no significance, and were not founded on fact. What were the charges I made? In the first place I said that the money granted to the Congested Districts Board had been granted mainly for two purposes; one for the purchase of land to relieve the congested districts of Scotland, and the other for the promotion of migration. I added that the Government had not expended a single sovereign in the purcase of land for the purpose indicated, and neither had they migrated a single crofter. Were these charges irresponsible? Were they true or not? In February last the Lord Advocate said that £1,451 had been actually expended on migration; yet not a single crofter has been migrated, judging from the Report which has recently been placed in our hands. I see a good deal there about the spraying of potatoes, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of migration, refers to the migration of microbes. I charge this Congested Districts Board, which has been in existence since 1897, and in possession of public funds for the purpose of procuring lands in order to relieve the congested districts, that they have not purchased any land, and have not relieved any congestion in the northern districts. The Lord Advocate cited one specific instance with regard to the Strathnaver holdings, but that scheme appears to have been a total failure, for not a single crofter took advantage of it, and it has practically been abandoned. The words of the Report on this point are—

"From this document [resolutions passed at a meeting at Betty hill] it will be seen that the condition proposed by us which seemed to cause the greatest difficulty in the way of the success of our scheme, was that which had reference to taking the sheep stock at valuation."

And again—

"It seemed difficult, therefore, in view of the disappointing response, to proceed further with the scheme as proposed, and it appeared as if the insufficiency of the number of suitable applicants would make it necessary for us to decline to purchase this portion of Syre."

I should explain that there were only twelve applicants for eleven of the sixteen holdings, and of these several stated that they would not take any portion of the present stock, although it was offered to them at a price to be fixed by agreement instead of by valuation. The Board continue—

"In these circumstanes the Board regret that they do not feel justified in pro-seeding with the scheme, and cannot accept the offer which you [i.e., the applicant] has made. They may possibly even be obliged to relinquish the option of purchase of the farm in question, and abandon the attempt to make it available for small holdings, a result which the Board would deeply regret."

I cannot help thinking it was scarcely generous on the part of the Lord Advocate to accuse me of making irresponsible charges, when he at the same moment held in his hand a copy of the Report from which I have just quoted. There has been a meeting of some members of the Congested Districts Board and a number of gentlemen representing the crofters of Sutherland-shire, in which this scheme was carefully gone over, and the very items I have pointed out are amongst those to which strong objection was taken by the crofter representatives. It has been pointed out that three-fourths of the population are not in a position to touch such holdings as were proposed by the Congested Districts Board. It has been shown too— and the Lord Advocate himself should have known it—that to ask the crofters to take over sheep at a Highland valuation was a thing which no shrewd man or no man of common sense, who knew anything about the Highland valuation of sheep, would have anything to do with. There was also a proposition that these unfortunate crofters should take advantage of what was described by the Lord Advocate as being a very handsome condition —they were to pay so much in respect of the shootings over the lands. But the land had been cut up into innumerable small holdings, and if the shootings were to be cut up in the same way and given to a large number of small proprietors what value would have attached to them? Could the Lord Advocate have guaranteed that the value of the shootings would have continued for any length of time? A scheme containing such a condition-could not be applicable to small crofters who have the greatest difficulty in the world in keeping body and soul together. It is simply absurd and preposterous. I say, therefore, that the charges I made were not irresponsible but were well founded, as is borne out in this very Report. I may further point out that the Board actually desired to charge those crofters at the rate of 3s. l0½d. per yard for fencing. Anyone must know that that is too. high a figure for such fencing as is put up in these places. I know that when I have had any put up I have had it done at a lower price, and, therefore, when you are dealing with men of small means, or with no moans at all, I think one is. entitled to claim that they should not be subjected to such exceptional charges. Then I come to the Borve holdings, and I. will quote this paragraph from the Report—

"From Mr. Carmichael's report we learned for the first time that it was considered impracticable to cut the farm up into twenty-four distinct lots, and that it was now proposed to mark off twenty-four small blocks of land beside the houses, amounting in all to little more than eighty acres, and that the remainder of the farm should be held and worked in common."

The Board finish up on this point by frankly stating that the only lot which was applied for was taken by the Free Church minister. I have no objection to this, but it is surely reducing the efforts; of this Board to an absurdity when you find that the only result of their attempt to reduce the congestion of the crofter districts in the Highlands is an assignment of a holding to a Free Church minister, who certainly cannot be considered to be a crofter. Then the Board started apparently to get feus for fishermen. They got a plot of land of about seven acres near Stornoway. What was the result? The Report tells us that—

"At the expiry of the period fixed in the notice the only applicant was a fisherman from Garrabost, who appeared to be a suitable person for the purpose we had in view, but as he was the only applicant for any one of the twenty-nine feus proposed we had to express to him our regret that it was impossible for us to proceed further with the scheme."

This, the third scheme of this Board, proved to be an absolute futility. Now I come to the Glendale holdings, with reference to which the Commissioners say—

"We entertained the application favourably, and were prepared to accede to it. But meantime it transpired that the proprietor had made other arrangements as to the said lands, and the application was withdrawn."

Then comes the Bay Farm (Skye) scheme, as to which the Commissioners say —

"This scheme includes the formation of certain roads and the erection of a boundary fence. If carried out there is reason to hope that it may be attended with success."

There you have from the Report of the Commissioners themselves the whole account of their endeavours to relieve the congested districts in the north of Scotland by the purchase of land, and I say again, as I said in May, that the main purpose for which this House voted a sum of money and entrusted the expenditure of it to the Commission has practically failed. They have done nothing in the direction it was intended they should go We know from the Lord Advocate that last year they spent over £2,000 in administrative expenses, a sum which, I suppose, goes in largo salaries to certain gentlemen or officials connected with the Board. But, so far as the main purposes of the Congested Districts Act are concerned, the work of the Commissioners has been futile, and the charges which I made, and which the Lord Advocate re-presented to be irresponsible, were charges which have unfortunately only too much substance. They have done something, of course. They have devoted some attention to bee-keeping, and we learn from their Report that they started with three hives, swarms, and outfits, which were sent to a certain man in the Highlands. I gather also that they sent 143 sittings of eggs to various parts, and they have purchased a certain number of bulls, rams, and stallions in order to improve the breed of stock in the Highlands. I do not deny that all this is very desirable, but it was not the main object for which this money was voted by the House of Commons. Certain work has been done, or is promised to be done, in regard to piers and roads. No doubt that, too, is desirable, especially if the piers are put in places which are suitable; but from my experience in connection with the neighbourhood, while the Orkney Commissioners have erected piers at great expense in places where there is no very considerable traffic, they have absolutely refused to consider the question of erecting a pier at St. Margaret's Hope, where mail steamers call, and where one is very desirable indeed. Bearing in mind all the facts I have stated, I submit that this Committee is entitled to use its discretion as to continuing to vote money for a Board which does not devote it to the real purpose for which it was originally granted, however desirable may be the objects to which it is actually applied. There is another matter with which I must deal before I sit down. In the debate in 1899, the Lord Advocate took credit for a scheme which had been in embryo. It was a scheme of the Secretary for Scotland to devote a considerable sum of money for a specific purpose. That purpose was technical education, and the Lord Advocate, in the course of his speech, said he was glad to think that when hon. Members had in their hands copies of this Report which I now have in my hand they would perceive that the responsibility for the failure of that measure to pass had been put on the right shoulders—namely, the shoulders of myself and the hon. friends who sit beside me. I do not think, if I may be allowed to say so, it is proper to use a Government Report as a means for making an attack on any of the hon. Members of this House, but it is still worse when that attack is made by a member of the Government who has a Report in his hand which is not in the hands of the Members he is attacking. While seeking to say the least offensive thing I can, I must say that I never heard a smaller-minded thing said in this House than was said by the Lord Advocate; when he said he was glad to think that the responsibility for that failure would be put on the right shoulders—meaning that this Report would go down to the constituencies, and that the constituencies would see who their friends were, I presume. There was an informal meeting held in the Lord Advocate's room last year, by invitation of the Secretary for Scotland, to consider this very scheme, and I should have thought myself that, being an informal meeting, no one would venture to mention it in this House. But it has been mentioned, and I feel perfectly free to say anything I know on the subject. You see in the Report that the Board endeavour to throw the responsibility for the "blocking" of the Bill on the Members for Northern constituencies.

The hon. Member will pardon me. What I said about the "blocking" of the Bill surely referred to a public matter.

I accept what the Lord Advocate says. At the same time I am sure hon. Members sitting on this side will remember that the matter was specifically referred to, and also the fact that there had been a meeting.

In my opinion it is very much to be deprecated that you should make allusions to what was done at a private meeting. I certainly should have transgressed had I made allusion to that. Personally I think it is a rule that ought not to be transgressed. There is not a word in my speech about that matter.

My recollection of the debate does not exactly tally with the statement the Lord Advocate has just made, but I will accept the statement. It is quite possible that my memory may be wrong and his accurate. I shall not make any further reference to what took place at the meeting.

I have got Hansard before me.

I shall pass from that at once, but I think I am entitled to say this—and I do not think the Lord Advocate will dispute it for a moment — certainly for one I really approved of the scheme so far as I knew it, but I did not approve of the scheme until I had ascertained that there were available funds in the hands of the Districts Board Commissioners—a balance of money which might be applied to some other purpose which the Secretary for Scotland might think desirable and in the interest of the crofters in the Highlands. The Report itself fortunately contains a copy of the Bill which was proposed by the Secretary for Scotland, and which was not passed. You will find that that Bill is in the most general terms possible. There is not a word about technical education in the whole Bill. I think it is simply to the effect that power should be given to the Secretary for Scotland to utilise the money for any purpose which he might think proper. I confess that my hon. friends who took the view they did take, and who refused to allow that Bill to proceed, may very well be justified, because no one could foresee what the purposes were in the mind of the Secretary for Scotland to which he intended to devote this money if the power had been given to him to do so. When you consider the large sums of money which the Commissioners have had in their hands so long, and which have not been applied to the purposes for which they were voted by the House, I confess my hon. colleagues will have an admirable case before the constituencies if it should be sought by the Lord Advocate to use this sentence which occurs in the Blue-book and which is an endeavour, in point of fact, to throw the responsibility on their shoulders for the failure. I do not know whether it is a failure or not, because the scheme never passed into being; and unless it was for technical education it is impossible for me to say what the purpose was. I deprecate the insertion in Reports issued as Government Reports of party attacks, and the more especially is that form of political warfare to be deprecated when those attacks are made by a Member of the House in the honourable position of Lord Advocate, who is himself the only person who has a copy of the Report he is reading in his hand. One might say a great deal more on this subject, but I feel myself that enough has been said. I wish to point out to members of the Committee that, in point of fact, while the administrative expenses have been going on in connection with this Congested Districts Board, there has been no expenditure by the Board upon the purposes for which the money was voted by the House of Commons, although now three years or more have elapsed since the money was voted. Having regard to the fact that this Report, as I said before, is a futility as far as any practical performance is concerned, I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by £500.

said his hon. friend felt very strongly the observations made respecting him and his colleagues on that side of the House in connection with this matter. He was not going to refer to the interview which Members of the House had with the Secretary for Scotland. He considered that interview private, and had kept his mouth closed. The Lord Advocate would not deny what he stated to the House the last time the matter was discussed. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he was one of those who blocked the Bill. That statement was absolutely false and unfounded. The Lord Advocate had no right, in the position he occupied, to make statements which were inaccurate and without any foundation with regard to the attitude and conduct of Members. The Lord Advocate at that time entrenched himself behind a Report of which Members of the House had no knowledge whatever. It had not been issued. He thought that was a most unfair advantage to take of Members. In the Report they found on page 7—

"It was obviously inexpedient for us to enter upon any enterprise which we were not quite sure we should have the right to carry through in all its developments, and we were advised that the clauses of the Act did not cover certain of the objects which were pressed upon us by those who knew the necessities of the Highlands very thoroughly. Early in 1899 we urged that a short Bill should be prepared giving us power to apply a portion of our funds for purposes other than those set forth in the Act of 1897, when we were satisfied that the expenditure would be for the benefit of the inhabitants of the congested districts. A copy of this Bill will be found in the appendix. It was introduced in the House of Lords by the Secretary for Scotland and passed through the various stages there; but as it was opposed and 'blocked' by some of the Members for the constituencies which would in our opinion have most benefited by its pro- visions, it had, in the state of public business, to be withdrawn at the end of July, 1899."

The constituency he represented was the constituency that would receive the greatest benefit from any such scheme as this, and he was particularly careful to impress this on the Lord Advocate. He was careful to avoid interfering in any way with the progress of the Bill. He was anxious that it should become law, and that there should be in Stornoway, in the island of Lewis, a scheme carried out for the purpose of giving technical instruction. He was particularly careful not to do anything to hinder or hamper the Bill, and yet the Lord Advocate months afterwards got up in his place and made a charge against hon. Members with respect to the withdrawal of the measure. The statement was false and contemptible.

What I did say—I am reading now from Hansard, which was revised by myself at the time; and as far as my recollection goes I know of no reason to question the accuracy of the report—what I said was—

"Hon. Members know that the Bill was blocked by hon. Members opposite belonging to those very portions of the country whose constituents would have been benefited, and the responsibility for that failure I am very glad to put upon their shoulders."

The Member for Wick then said that he had not blocked the Bill, and the Member for Ross-shire said he had not blocked the Bill, and I accepted the disclaimer, but said that the hon. Member had been one of those who prevented it passing.

again denied that he had done anything to hinder or hamper the progress of the Bill, and it was most ungenerous to allege that Members of the House blocked the measure. Probably it was thought that such a statement might catch votes. If it did catch a stray vote or two it was a most contemptible mode of securing them. With regard to the migration of crofters, he had asked several questions during the session, but had always been told to wait until the Report was published. On the 30th March he asked the Lord Advocate how many crofters had been migrated with the assistance of the Congested Districts Board, and the reply was that none had actually been migrated. And yet that was the very object for which the Act of Parliament was passed There was an expenditure during the year of £8,000, of which £2,114 12s. 4d. went in administrative charges. The charges had diminished slightly since, but certainly it was not a satisfactory way to conduct the business to have such excessive charges for administration. If the directors of any commercial enterprise tolerated any such expenses, they would be cleared out very quickly, but because this was a Government Department, they were required to submit to them. The Committee had every right to object to this state of things, and he trusted the Amendment would be pressed to a division, as that was the only way in which a protest could be lodged against the conduct of the Board. There were a few matters in the Report to which he desired to refer. On page 7 there was this paragraph—

"A shipowner who is impressed with this difficulty offered us the free use of a ship for six months to try an experiment he suggested. This ship had previously been used as a tender to a training ship, and had every requisite on board for the purpose suggested. The proposal was that there should be a vessel with accommodation for about fifty boys, where for three months or the like period each lad should receive rudimentary instruction in sea life and its usages before being drafted into the regular training ship."

There was no further information, and he should like to know whether that offer had been accepted, and if it had not, whether the Admiralty had been approached with a view to getting a training ship at Stornoway. Highland boys would not go to the lowlands of Scotland to these training ships. Then came the question of holdings, migration, and fishermen's dwellings. Reference had been made to some land in the Island of Lewis, for which it was arranged the tenants should pay £1 5s. per quarter-acre. It was monstrous that they should be expected to pay £5 per acre. Besides, what could be done with quarter-acre plots? If only, instead of coming to Parliament and talking on subjects they knew nothing about, the Lord Advocate, or the Secretary for Scotland, or some other responsible person, would visit these islands and find out how the people lived, they would have more sympathy for Highland crofters than they now evidenced. There were twenty-six of these plots, but he was not surprised to find there was only one applicant. It was impossible for people to enter into such arrangements as were imposed; they would only saddle themselves with burdens they could not bear. Statements were often made in the House that the Highlanders had the means but would not pay. That was not true. The Highland crofters were honest and industrious, and they wore willing and anxious to pay 20s. in the £, and not 5s. or 10s., as the House was frequently led to believe. What were the Board going to do in the matter? Were they going to say there was no possible chance of getting any land in the Island of Lewis? Were they going to throw up the sponge and say they had exhausted every means for securing land? When the Bill was passing through the House he had urged there would be great difficulty in securing land, because there was no clause providing for compulsory acquisition. What was the Board going to do about the waste land in the Island of Lewis? Was it impossible to make any better arrangements with the landlord? The Committee were entitled to some information on this subject. Then there was a letter sent from the Landward Committee, Stornoway, as to conditions of feu of fishermen's dwellings. Mr. Macfarlane, clerk of the Stornoway Parish Council, acting on behalf of the people, wrote to the Congested Districts Board asking them for information as follows—

"'Each house to be used as a dwelling house for one family and for no other purpose.' Please say does this mean that the feuar will be prevented from keeping a lodger or lodgers? 'Keeping a shop or carrying on a trade on the feu.' Does this rule prevent the feuar from selling even bread or groceries in any part of his house? Or if the feuar fisherman should happen to be a tradesman, is he prohibited from working at his trade, should he be unable to follow the fishing V Is the feuar's wife or other female member of the family prohibited from conducting, say, a small dressmaking or millinery business?"

We would expect the Congested Districts. Board to be able to give a direct and straight answer to such questions; but what was their reply? On the 27th December, 1899, they said—

"For trading or business purposes the rate of feu duty would be substantially higher."

The selling of a few sweets or loaves of bread would make it a trading or business place, and the feu duty would be substantially higher. That was a specimen. of sympathy with the people! According to paragraph 2—

"If the house remains essentially a dwelling-house the Board do not think that the feuar's wife would be prohibited from carrying on such an occupation as dressmaking, nor do they think the feuar himself, while pursuing his occupation as a fisherman, would be pie-vented, in his spare time, from engaging in such mechanical or other industry as can be carried on in a dwelling-house."

Was it likely any crofter would take a few on such a statement as that? The crofter wanted to know absolutely whether or not his wife or daughter would be permitted to carry on a dressmaking business, but the reply of Mr. R. Macgregor, the secretary to the Board, was that the Board "did not think" she would be prohibited from doing so. Then Mr. De Moleyns was sent up for the purpose of explaining to or teaching the people the potato-spraying process. That gentleman issued a report on the 12th August, 1899, as to the experiments, and he did not after-wards go near the places nor send any competent person until 21st October, when, upon arriving at Stornoway and visiting the various places in the island, he found all the potato lifting had been done. Surely instructions should have been issued by the secretary to the Board. This was how the money of the Congested Districts Board was squandered. He wished to know something about the construction of the Carlo way Road. They had carried on the work from two ends, and they had got stuck in a bog. If they drove along that road from Stomoway or Carloway, they would get to that bog, and no further. Was that a satisfactory condition of things I Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that £15,000 was granted by the Conservative Government in 1891 for that road? Was it for the purpose of catching votes in the 1892 election? he did not mind the Government getting votes, but they should not get them under false pretences. It was the duty of the Government engineer to see that proper plans were prepared, not to exceed £15,000, and if the road was likely to take £25,000 or £30,000, they had no business to start it. That was how matters wore managed for Scotland. The receipts of the Congested Districts Board amounted to £78,129 6s. 10d., and they had a balance in hand of £60,134 6s. 8d. There were many other items about which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would furnish them with the fullest information. The balance-sheet showed a balance in hand on the 1st of April, 1899, of £40,804. There was a sum of £15,000 from the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and £20,000 was the annual sum voted by Parliament in aid of the fund. Was that sum of money lying at the Bank of Scotland at interest? The miscellaneous receipts from agriculture were £1,403, and land and migration repayments of loans and interest £29 9s. (5d. As small loans in connection with land and migration the crofters had £1,310, and they had paid back their first instalments, which was very satisfactory indeed, and he hoped they should hear no more about crofters not paying their honest and just debts. On the other side of the account they found the administrative expenses amounting to £1,524. Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Captain SINCLAIR, Forfarshire). House counted, and forty Members being found present,

said the Re port disclosed a most unsatisfactory method of keeping the accounts. What they wanted, what they were entitled to, and what he should continue to press for was a detailed statement in the Estimates of the amounts expended under the various sub-sections. They were entitled to have the respective amounts expended under those headings. The Congested Districts Board had as secretary a man who was a clerk in the Exchequer Office in Edinburgh, and he received £650 a year for his services as chief clerk in that office. The Secretary for Scotland had appointed him to do the secretarial work of the Congested Districts Board of Scotland, and he took out of the Congested Districts Board's funds £150 a year. The Board also took another £150 a year from the fund for the purpose of paying a man to do the work which this clerk was not able to do in the Exchequer Department. Was that a satisfactory method of conducting business? They took £300 a year for the purpose of paying a secretary, and the same man had to attend to his duties at the Exchequer Office. No wonder he was not acquainted with all the facts. Had it never entered the minds of the members of the Congested Districts Board that it would be very much better to give this sum of£300 to one man, who could give his whole time to the work of the Board? There were plenty of competent men to be found in Edinburgh for £300 a year, which was the sum now paid for doing the work badly. He hoped the Board would give this point consideration. He wished also to express his regret at the callous indifference of the Board to carry out the provisions of the Act of Parliament for the purpose of removing crofters from the congested districts. Several years ago the light hon. Gentleman said the scheme was well in hand, but why did the Board not carry it out? Not a single crofter had been migrated. This was certainly not in accordance with the promise of the Secretary for Scotland. He hoped the matter would receive the attention of the Government.

I should like to say two or three words upon this Vote. A few weeks ago, when we had this question before us, the Lord Advocate read an extract from the Report which we have now got in our hands. We are much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity, now that we are in possession of that Report, to discuss the subject with greater knowledge. One cannot help observing that there appears to be a useless expenditure of money under this Vote. It is not very easy to inquire into the origin of this expenditure during the past year, which has been transferred from one account to another without going back to the year 1891. The object of this expenditure was mainly for the construction of piers, roads, and public works in the Highlands. That remained as a Vote upon our Estimates till a couple of years ago. During the time that the Liberal Government was in office they made certain arrangements which they had not time to carry out, and they were naturally pressed as to what they would do in regard to them. They were not able to propose anything directly in the way of carrying out that Report, and as a kind of solatium they brought forward the Congested Districts Board Bill of 1897, which is the Act under which this Board exercises its powers at the present moment. The Board got very wide powers under that Act, although not wide enough for the desires of the present Secretary for Scot- land, and they have had a large sum of money voted by Parliament every year since that time. Although in this Estimate we are only voting £20,000, there is an additional sum of £15,000 per annum paid out of the Local Taxation Fund, so that its income out of the public exchequer amounts to no less than £35,000 per annum. My hon. friend has already called attention to the fact that the Report we hold in our hands gives a statement of accounts down to the 31st of March in the present year, and gives us information down to the end of the last financial year. We find that they had in hand a balance of £60,000, while their expenditure during that year amounted to no more than £20,000. I think the year before it was something less than that amount. The Board are at the present moment quite unable to spend anything like the money that is voted to them by Parliament for the purposes for which they were created. As the Committee knows, this sum is not returned in the Exchequer balance, but is kept by the Congested Districts Board and allowed to accumulate in their hands, so that we find that the Secretary for Scotland on the 31st of March last had a balance of £60,000 in his hands, and he asks for £35,000 more this year to spend i under the provisions of this Act of Parliament. Is it worth while that we should go on paying what is really the interest upon a million of money which is substantially in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland alone, to spend practically in almost any way he chooses in certain limited districts and counties in Scotland? I think the policy which permits such an expenditure of public money by the Secretary for Scotland is very questionable indeed, and it becomes still more questionable when we hear of the great want of success, to put it very mildly, of the effort which this Board has made to spend the money for the purposes provided for under the Act of 1897. I am not going into the details of this Report nor into the general purposes for j which the money could be spent. My hon. friend the Member for Wick has alluded to the question of migration, and he has said very truly that in this respect the efforts of the Board to spend money in new settlements have proved practically futile. I think that view is entirely borne out by the Report itself. If we go into the other subjects and con- sider the purposes for which this money has been spent we find the same result; in fact, I think it would require a humorist to deal with this Report, and that is not one of the characteristics of Scotch Members, and I am sure it is not one of my characteristics. I must decline even an effort to deal adequately with the transactions of a body supplying bulls and stallions, which are described in almost equally humorous language upon some of the pages of the Report, and they have met with an extraordinary want of success in carrying out their schemes of advancing seed potatoes. I say that it is humorous reading, but it is also a very serious matter, for it is a very great waste of public money to go on year after year voting this sum of £20,000 for purposes for which this Board, with all the desire in the world to spend the money, could not contrive a way of doing so. I should like to say a word as to the constitution of the Board as a spending authority. I say that it is really not a Board at all, for it is really the Secretary for Scotland, and he alone, who has all the power upon this Board. If anyone will take the trouble to look at the Act of Parliament he will see that the Secretary for Scotland makes all the rules, to begin with, to regulate the proceedings and the meetings of the Board. He has passed the Act of Parliament, and he names all the unofficial members on the Board, who are in a minority. he appoints a secretary, and fixes his salary. We have no record of the meetings of this Board, and it seems physically impossible to hold many meetings, because the majority of the members hold official positions in various parts of Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland has distinct control over one branch of the expenditure; he is himself chairman of the Board, and he reports to the Secretary for Scotland, so that he draws up the Report of this Board, presents it to himself, and then to this House. It is clear to anyone who looks into the matter that substantially we are voting every year a sum of £35,000 for the Secretary for Scotland to spend as he likes, and I do not think that is a proper expenditure of public money. I wish to add my word of protest against this expenditure. I do not think that such a remark should have been made in a Report laid before Parliament, particularly in a Report signed by a Member of the other House. Here is what appears on page 7 of that, Report. A Bill

"was introduced in the House of Lords by the Secretary for Scotland to extend the powers of the Congested Districts Board, and passed, through cue various stages there; but as it was opposed and 'blocked' by some of the Members for the constituencies which would, in our opinion, have most benefited by its provisions, it had, in the state of public business,, to be withdrawn at the end of July, 1899."

I do not think such an observation; should have appeared in any Parliamentary Paper. I do not think that it lies. in the mouth of a Minister of the Crown to complain in a public document of the action of Members of this House in the discharge of their duty to their constituents, in full liberty and on their own responsibility. So far as my recollection goes I do not believe that any effort was made in this House last year to pass the Bill through the House of Commons. It never was put down to public discussion at a time when it could possibly come on. I go further and ask, if this Bill is of such great importance, if it was so absolutely necessary, in the opinion of the Congested Districts Board, that their powers should be enlarged, why was it not introduced this session? We have heard nothing of it since July, 1899, and I believe that unless we had been re reminded of it by the paragraph in the Report of the Congested Districts Board. the existence of the Bill would have passed, entirely out of the memory of the Scottish Members. I am prepared to move the reduction of the Vote by.£10,000, because I believe it is a waste of money. The Congested Districts Board, are not able to spend the whole of it during the currency of the financial year. Moreover, I consider that it is demoralising to the people amongst whom it is spent. Trying to stimulate industries in districts of the country where such industries are totally unsuitable leads to extravagance, and does little indeed to encourage the independence of the people or to develop a better system.

said they had not the report of the Congested Districts Board in hand when the Scotch Estimates were last before the Committee.. They, however, had now got it, and they knew what that Board had done during the past year. He, for one, was not astonished that nothing had been done. He never expected that much would be done, because the Board had no powers under the Act to compel Scotch landlords to assist in giving land on which to settle crofters. Out of £35,000, which was voted by Parliament last year, the Board had only spent £1,500 on the migration of crofters. The emigration to Canada had proved a failure, and therefore it was proposed that that money should be spent in migration; but the Board had spent more in management than in migration. Moreover, in the one case where they had spent money, instead of placing the migrated crofters under the Crofters Act, which they ought to have done, they had planted them as leaseholders who did not enjoy the benefits of the Crofters Act, and thus the crofters had ceased to be crofters. That was a very shameful thing for the Board to do. Two schemes had been brought before the crofters—one in Sutherland-shire and the other near Stornoway. The price asked for the Sutherlandshire land was simply preposterous. Why, land was offered within fifty miles of London at a quarter of the price asked for the poor land in Sutherlandshire. In fact, the crofters would be better off' by coming to Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, because they could get land there at half the price asked in Sutherlandshire. He was astonished at the Congested Districts Board bringing before the crofters of Stornoway a feuing scheme. The maximum size of the holding was a quarter of an acre. Of course, the thing was a farce and a dead failure. He expected that from the very beginning, and therefore was not disappointed. Until the Board got compulsory powers to acquire land no good would be done. He was inclined to vote for this grant of money ceasing altogether, because he did not see why it should be piled up and not spent for any useful purpose. He was not sure that it was not more baneful than stimulating at the present time. If the Board went to work on proper lines, some good might be done in Argyllshire and other parts of the west of Scotland.

The hon. Member for Wick Burghs seems to complain bitterly of the language I used in a former debate. What I sought to contradict was the statement, which the hon. Member repeated to-day, that the scheme of the Congested Districts Board for the Strathnaver holdings was a preposterous one. One of his reasons for saying that the scheme was preposterous was that the sheep were to be taken over at a valuation; but the hon. Member forgot for the moment that although that condition was originally made, it was withdrawn by a qualifying notice issued on 8th January, and the scheme, as it was submitted, did not contain that provision in it. The letters of gentlemen who lived in the neighbourhood —one a clergyman and the other the convener of the county council—characterised the scheme as it then stood as a scheme which was a very fair and generous one. Therefore the hon. Member will find it was a humble protest on my part against applying anything like the epithet "preposterous" to this scheme. Regarding the statements of the hon. Member in which he said the Board were persons who had other things to do and were not in earnest, I do not think the word "irresponsible" was an unparliamentary epithet. The members were, as I pointed out, chosen because they were persons engaged in other avocations, in order to got, so far as we could, those who, in Scotland, could bring the maximum of experience to deal with this difficult subject. I do not consider it was a fail-description of the efforts of these gentlemen who constituted this Board to say they were not in earnest. Another subject of grievance with the hon. Member was that the Report of the Congested Districts Board was in my hands and not in those of the Scotch Members. I explained on a former occasion that I was not responsible for fixing the particular date on which the Vote was to be brought forward. That had been arranged by the Leader of the House, who, as hon. Members know, is always exceedingly anxious to take hon. Members opposite along with him. The usual notice was given that the Scotch Estimates would be taken on that day, and no suggestion was made through the ordinary channels of communication that the Vote should not be taken then. So far I do not see what I could have done otherwise in the matter. Personally I think it is a great deal more fitting and convenient that the Vote should be taken after the Report is out, and certainly if I am spared to be in the same place in the year to come we will not have discussion without the Report. But, at any rate, I have shown my view of the matter by putting this Vote down for discussion to-day. I can scarcely be held blameworthy when to a certain extent I quoted from the Report. The hon. Gentleman said that I read from the Report for three quarters of an hour; but, as a matter of fact, I only read two sentences of ten lines long each. It is natural that I should have justified the action of the Board by telling the Committee, as I did, precisely what the Board had been doing. I do not propose to go through, as I did on a former occasion, the detailed history of what the Congested Districts Board have been doing during the last year. I am content to let the Scottish people judge for themselves. On a perusal of the Report of the Board, which speaks for itself, it could not be said that the Board have been doing nothing, and have been a failure, because they have not been to any extent successful in migrating crofters. I am quite aware that this is a question which bulks very largely in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who thought it was the one opportunity for usefulness above all others for the Congested Districts Board. They said that because, as a matter of fact, the Board have not been to any great extent successful in their migration schemes, therefore the Board are at fault. I deprecate that position altogether. So far as the policy of the Board is concerned, they do not propose to migrate crofters in any eleemosynary sense. They do not propose to do more than help those who. are in the position to help themselves. The hon. Member spoke a good deal about the Strathnaver case; but there have been successful operations in other cases, although the holdings have been small, no doubt. But the Strathnaver case cannot even now be said to be a failure, because the whole matter is even now open,. and, as a matter of fact, efforts are being made to induce crofters to settle there. Hon. Members must recollect that for any success in the direction of migration we must necessarily have time. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of the people in the West Highlands, but anybody who knew them must be aware that they would be always glad to accept such benefits as Providence or anyone else may put before them, and that there will always be a strong desire to get a thing for nothing rather than pay anything for it. I have little doubt myself that, until it is seen that the settled policy of the Board is not simply to give the land away, but to help those who will help themselves, the people will hang back for better terms. The Board has only been in existence for two years, which is a very short time for experiments of an undoubtedly difficult character to get into such a position as to have a practical chance of success. Although I should be very far from saying that there is anything to entitle one to hold out a sanguine hope of assured success, I think this is a matter in which the House may be fairly asked to exercise to a certain extent the virtue of a little patience. What I do claim for the Congested Districts Board, and what a perusal of the Report will show to any fair-minded person, is that they had really been assiduous in this matter, and have tried then best and are still trying their best. Hon. Members have commented somewhat severely on the statement in the Report as to the proceedings on last year's Bill. I confess I cannot see anything wrong in that statement, or that it bears anything, so far as I understand it, of the nature of what may be called a party character. What was said was that the Bill was opposed and "blocked" by some Members whose constituencies, in the opinion of the Board, would have been most benefited by its provisions. Here is what I myself said when the Scotch Estimates were last before the Committee—

"With the view to procuring that power"

—which the Board had not got—

"my noble friend introduced last year a Bill, which passed all its stages in the House of Lords, which would have allowed a sum of money to be used in this direction. Hon. Member.-! know that that Bill was blocked by hon. Members opposite belonging to those very portions of the country whose constituencies would have been benefited, and the responsibility for that failure I am very glad to put on their shoulders."

I cannot see that there is anything unparliamentary in that. Of course I was glad to say, in my speech, that I was able to put the saddle on the right horse; but is there any reason why I should not say so? Certainly that class of statement has been made over and over again in Parliament. The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs is very wrong in putting the cap on himself. I never alluded to the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs as obstructing the Bill in any way. On the contrary, I think the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs did his best to help the Government to pass the Bill and get it brought forward. The hon. Member for Ross-shire now is in rather a difficult position. The hon. Member now states that he did not block the Bill, and I accepted the statement at once, and willingly withdraw what I formerly said about the hon. Member. I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Ross-shire was one of those who "blocked" it and would not allow the Bill to pass. The Bill, as a matter of fact, was blocked, and on the 24th July there were five notices on the Paper "that it be read a second time this day three months." These five notices were all given by Members on the opposite benches, two of them representing crofter constituencies. I think that is ample justification of my statement that the Bill was absolutely blocked.

That is not "blocking."

It was "blocked" in the sense I used the word "blocking," and in the sense used by every newspaper in the country. If the hon. Member has a peculiar meaning for the word "blocking," he might perhaps explain it to the Committee. "Blocking" means putting down a notice "that the Bill be read a second time this day three months." The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanarkshire, who enjoys a position of great responsibility on the other side of the House, was consulted by me as to whether the Bill would be allowed to pass.

I said that it would not be allowed to go through without discussion.

That is the reason why the Bill was withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that at that period of the session the Bill could not be passed if it was to be opposed. The Bill was introduced on the understanding that it should be passed without discussion, though I do not think that there was any promise given. That really ends what, after all, is not a very important incident. I would not have said so much about it had it not been that it bulked so largely in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite this-afternoon. I come now to one or two small points of detail which were put by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. He asked, first of all, about the offer of a tender to the training ship mentioned in page 7 of the Report. But that offer could not be accepted, because the Congested Districts Board believed they would not be allowed to spend the money: voted by Parliament in that class of expenditure. That is just one of the points which the Bill introduced last year was wanted to meet. Then the hon. Member referred to the experiments made in potato spraying by Mr. W. T. de Moleyns, of the Irish Congested Districts Board, in Lewis, and complained that that gentleman went back to Lewis a second time. Of course the gentleman who had conducted them wanted naturally to see the result of that series of experiments On arriving at Stornoway, he found that the potatoes were spread about. I think it would be a matter of curiosity to see what the potatoes were like. The hon. Member asks, "Where was the secretary of the Congested District Board?" Does he really expect that the Congested Districts Board are to group en masse to seethe potatoes? What does the hon. Member mean by asking, "Where was. the secretary of the Congested Districts Board?"

It is the secretary's, business to be in touch with the owners of these potatoes, and to ascertain from them the information that may be required. I think the secretary is not in touch with them. I should not be so insane as to expect all the Commissioners to go up there. I say there is a want of business management.

I think the fact that it is an out-of-the-way district is a sufficient explanation of his not being at that particular place, and really it was only thought of in order to. find out the result of an experiment. The next observation was about roads. I think he overlooked what the Report says on page 77. He will find from that statement that they did see about roads. He spoke also about bees and poultry. There is no more to be said on these matters than is said in the Report, where they, are fully dealt with. It is. not altogether an easy, matter to take up these two branches in a district. He ended his remarks with an attack upon the secretary, in which he said that the secretary's work was not properly per-formed. That is not at all the opinion of the Board, and it seems to me a little inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman has stated. At one time he spoke of the great expense of the officials, and in that connection he referred to the fact that the partial time of the secretary is taken instead of his whole time. As a matter of fact, it is impossible that the work could be done more cheaply, and I am informed by the members of the Congested Districts Board that they consider the secretary has done his work exceedingly well. I pass now to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, which really were upon quite a different platform from those of the hon. Member for Ross. His complaint is that there is great use-less expenditure of money under this Vote. Now, I rather think that what he means by that is that there is a useless amount of money voted under this Vote. He does not mean, I think, that too much money is spent. He means really that he does not think the Board are able to spend the money that they get. Of course, a great deal of his speech was taken up with criticisms of the position of the Secretary for Scotland upon this Board. Well, I quite agree that the Secretary for Scotland is entirely responsible for the policy of this Board, but I do not think that the criticism upon that head is really appropriate to the present, or, indeed, for any other occasion, on the Estimates. That was proper criticism to be made at the time the Bill became an Act. ft is all very well to speak in that way now, and that is very often the position of a Government Department, as, for example, the Education Department. The Secretary for Scotland, along, no doubt, with the Duke of Devonshire, is upon that Board, and discusses the policy of the Education Department, and I am not aware that anybody thinks that an undesirable arrangement. I would remind the hon. Member that one of the last legislative achievements of the Government to which he belonged was to do away—and mightily they boasted of it—with the old system of having Boards independent of the control of Parliament. Accordingly, they did away with the Board of Supervision, which had no Parliamentary Minister connected with it, and they constituted the Local Government Board, with the Secretary for Scotland as its Parliamentary head. He is the president. It has a different name, but it is the same thing. He has got exactly the same Board. The Local Government Board have to do what the Secretary for Scotland tells them, and the Secretary for Scotland is amenable to the criticism of this House, just in the same way as any other Minister in any other Department. That is all I can say at the moment on that matter, for this is not the time to defend the arrangement, as it is entirely consistent with the Act of Parliament. In dealing with the question of expenditure the hon. Member referred to the change from the old Highlands and Islands Vote to another Vote. I would remind him that, although the Highlands and Islands Vote was an annual. Vote, it owed its origin to a particular province of the Treasury to spend a certain capital sum on the Highlands and Islands, so that realty, I think, there was, so to speak, a fresh departure when this Board was started. I want to deal with the question of how the money is spent. I do not know really whether the hon. Member goes the whole length of the hon. Member for Caithness in saying that there ought not to be money given to the Highlands at all. He must either do that or say, "Yes, money ought to be given to the Highlands, but you are not spending it in the proper way." ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but, as I understood, the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire scarcely associated himself with those remarks. He rather seemed to point out that the money was not only not spent, but not spendable. If that is his view, I do not think it is a view which commends itself to many of the Members who sit around him. I think that ends everything that was said in the debate except what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness. He said he thought this Congested Districts Board had been a failure because it had not compulsory powers in regard to land. I cannot help thinking that the real difficulty has not been the getting of land at all. The Board were quite able to get land, but the real difficulty was the getting of persons, even with all their assistance, who were in a position to give a fair guarantee that they would cultivate that land with a proper prospect of success. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that the price of these holdings in the Lews, on Matheson's estate, is far too great. That price, as it happens, is not fixed by the Congested Districts Board at all. It was fixed by the Court of Session, and the lowest price at which land might be got on that estate.

Pardon me; I was not referring to that matter.

I do not think I need pursue that point, seeing that he was referring to another case. It does not seem to me that the system broke down because the price was large, The hon. Member said also that the Congested Districts Board ought to have placed the crofters under the Crofters Act. That is an impossibility. You cannot place them, under the Crofters Act. Really we come back to where we started. The Congested Districts Board have certainly done nothing in the direction of conferring eleemosynary benefits on the crofters, and in that way pauperising them; but, on the other hand, if you are prepared to consider the question whether there has been a patient endeavour to do the best for the people, who, after all, in many cases are ignorant, and to promote schemes of utility upon a sound economic basis, then I think that anyone who reads the report with a fair mind will see that the Board have done their best.

In his earlier remarks the right hon. Gentleman took consider-able exception to the adjective "preposterous" which an hon. friend behind me has used. I am rather disposed to take up the discredited word "preposterous," and to say that the conclusion I have come to is that this is not only a preposterous Report, but that the Congested Districts Board itself may be worthy of having that adjective applied to it. The right hon. Gentleman maintained that there was no ground for the criticisms passed on one passage in the Report, where the conduct of Members in the House is animadverted upon, where it is said that a most useful and beneficent Bill promoted by the Congested Districts Board had failed to become law because it was "blocked" by some of the Members for the constituencies which would now have been most benefited by its pro- visions. What are we to understand by this word "blocked"? Let us remember that originally, a good many years ago, it had a technical meaning; anyone could block a Bill to prevent it being considered after a certain hour; but that is a thing of the past. What we now mean by blocking a Bill I do not exactly know. There is no technical meaning. In this case what Members undoubtedly did in this House was to put down the usual notice of opposition to the Bill, with a view of obtaining further information and further consideration on the subject, a thing which is done every day. But the question does not turn upon whether that was a right or a wrong thing for hon. Members to do. The point is that a public official in a public document actually alleges that the reason why something has not been done by his Department or Board is, as he thinks, the flagitious conduct of Members of the House of Commons. I think that is indecency. It would have been indecent if the Board had said that they would have introduced the Bill, but Her Majesty's Government did not approve of it, and if they had thus put the blame on the Government; but it is doubly indecent to put it upon Members of Parliament in the discharge of their duty, who are perfectly entitled to put down notice of opposition to any Bill without being held up in this way by a high public official. What was the reason that these notices were put down? Let the Committee observe that this Bill was a very singular Bill. It was drawn in the vaguest possible terms. It was a Bill of only two clauses. It sought for powers for the Congested Districts Board of Scot-land to apply a portion of the fund at their disposal, not exceeding one-fifth thereof, "in further providing for the practical instruction of, or for such other purposes as may appear to be of benefit to, the inhabitants of the said districts." What was felt by a great many members was that this fund was created, and the Board established, mainly for the purpose of improving the position of crofters by extending their holdings, or by migrating them from one place to another. The Board have practically done nothing in that way, but they have nibbled away at little schemes of alleged beneficence, and I dare say they are very philanthropic and nice little schemes in their way. But they have been nibbling away at that kind of thing and have left unspent a large portion of the money at their disposal, and then they come to Parliament and say, "Please give us some further little schemes to spend this money on," some further means of evading the main purposes for which Parliament gave the money, and for which they exist. That was the view taken by Members, and they said, "If you want to instruct the unfortunate inhabitants of these districts in some of the things they would be better of being instructed in, get more money from Parliament, but leave to its original destination the money which was given for other purposes." It was for that reason, and because hon. Members wished for more information, that they are gibbeted in an official Report by the Secretary for Scotland. I now come to the question of the Board. I do not know whether the Board is, as a witness said of the Board of Admiralty, useful as a screen, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there was at one time within my Parliamentary experience very considerable jealousy in regard to the system of Boards which then largely governed Scotland. We have been desirous of getting a responsible Minister placed in charge of these public duties. Well, practically I suppose we may take it, after what the Lord Advocate has said, that the Secretary for Scotland is the Congested Districts Board. He told us that the Secretary for Scotland may do whatever he likes in the Local Government Board, and that the Board has no power without his sanction. We may assume that it is the same in regard to the Congested Districts Board. I think that is a satisfactory thing to know, at all events, and as the Lord Advocate is in this House the whipping boy for the Secretary for Scotland, he must expect us to visit on his devoted head the blame we attach to the doings of this wonderful Board. What has this wonderful Board been doing? The fact remains that although they have been in existence for two or three years, they have not migrated a single crofter, and they have done almost nothing in the way of extending holdings. I remember very vividly that some years ago a Committee sat upstairs considering the question of colonisation. We ransacked for places to which crofters could be advantageously and profitably sent, and the conclusion we came to was that there were no such places, and that if we were to relieve the congestion in the districts in the north-west of Scotland it must be by migration within their own country to places where they could find a better means of livelihood. It was in accordance with that finding that this. Board was intended, no doubt tentatively at first, to move in that direction. The Lord Advocate says we must do it with patience, but there is a limit even to patience, and I think the principal criticism passed on this Report is that so little, in fact absolutely nothing, has been done for the very purpose for which the Board was called into existence. I must say that I do not know that I have spent a more entertaining ten minutes than those spent in reading the Report when it first came out, and the stories of the tricks the Board have played with seed potatoes and with divers animals in remote islands for breeding purposes. There are stories of potatoes from the bags of which when they were landed in the forlorn islands the labels had unfortunately been either torn away, or perhaps eaten by one of the prize animals carried in the same vessel—at all events, the labels were not forthcoming—with the result that all the potatoes were shovelled out to the inhabitants indiscriminately, and they very wisely refused to pay anything for them. Then we have the touching story of the three bees— [Cries of "Bee-hives"]—or, was it beehives?—it is quite immaterial—that the Board actually, with all this money at their disposal, placed in the careful hands of Mr. M'Intyre. My hon. friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire said our countrymen would not understand the humour and irony of these circumstances, but I do not agree with my hon. friend. I think they do understand irony, and they will see what someone said was—it is a strong word to use—the farce—but it nearly approached to a farce—of the proceedings of this Board. The whole thing was a ridiculus mus. Now that we have the three hives of bees, a few sittings of eggs, and a patient but ineffectual attempt to obtain the migration of crofters, I hope next year's Report will show some better, more active, and hopeful results. I do not think there is likely to be any very large benefit conferred upon that part of Scot- land if their efforts are confined to the direction in which they have hitherto been exercised.

The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire expressed a pious wish that a humorist would appear in the debate, and he has found one on his own front bench. I scarcely think the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will, after all, commend it to the public to which he is really speaking—the public of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has indulged his capacity for humour so far that he has made some charges that are really, I think, somewhat grave when they come to be carefully weighed. He has spoken with disapprobation of the passage in the Report in which the Congested Districts, Board deplore the loss of the Bill of last year. I am not going to treat that matter again, or deal with the ethics of the question whether the statement should have gone into the Report, but I would remind the House that what they were anxious to do —an anxiety which I think ought to have been treated without levity—was to have some form of practical education which would allow these young Highland boys and girls to get fair wages when they go out into the world. That I should have thought a very desirable object, and all the right hon. Gentleman can find to say about it is that the Congested Districts Board, after nibbling away at little schemes, were trying to get further away, and evading the main purpose of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman sticks to that, let him do so. Evading the main purpose of the Bill is a fairly grave charge to make against a Minister of the Crown and the Board, because it simply means,, of course, that their whole object is to defeat the purposes for which Parliament has entrusted them with the money As I said before, the true determination of this matter will depend not upon what the right hon. Gentleman or I say about it. I do not think the patient efforts of this Board, as they are detailed in the Report, will be nullified by witticisms— however congenial to the souls of a dull Committee—about three hives of bees, such as the right hon. Gentleman has given us in his speech.

No one is likely to retard anything of a beneficial character which can be done for the people of the north-west of Scotland, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember the debates which took place on the introduction of the Bill constituting this Board. Nothing is more plain, from the Reports we have had, than that the Board has not succeeded in carrying out in any large degree the policy of land migration, which was held out as the chief work the Board was to do. The Lord Advocate has reminded us that this Board is a continuation of the old policy of having a Vote of money on the Estimates for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. That was followed by the Highlands and Islands Commission. The main recommendation of that Commission was that there should be an attempt made to carry out land migration and the extension of the crofters' holdings in the Highlands, and when the Bill constituting this Board was under consideration, grave complaints were made by Members on this side of the House that the Board would not succeed in carrying out those objects with the powers conferred by the Bill. It was urged that compulsory powers of purchase should be given to the Board, or it would not be able to effect its object. Compulsory powers were not given, and what has been the result? Land, migration has been found to be impossible under present conditions. There is a paragraph in the Report which I hoped the Lord Advocate would explain. He says further powers are required by the Board to carry out the purposes it has in view; but he gives us no details of those further powers. It is perfectly clear that the Board is now going to justify its existence by an entirely different policy from that of land migration or the extension of crofters' holdings. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I confess I look with a considerable amount of favour on the ideas which are enunciated and indicated in the Report, though I think there has been a lamentable failure to carry those ideas into execution. It is all very well to tell us that we should be patient, and that if we object to this we ought to object to any money whatever being given to this purpose. It may be perfectly legitimate to say there should be money given, but surely before the money is voted there should be a policy. Surely Parliament should not have voted for this purpose the interest on more than £1,000,000, unless it had some scheme to carry into effect. Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury could throw some light upon this point, because it was in his Election programme that this very item occurred—that we were to have public works on the west coast of Scotland. As far as I know, that promise has been implemented only with one or two insignificant piers and boat-slips, which are described in this Report. However good the object may be, and however beneficent the purpose it is endeavouring to carry out, it is not the original purpose for which the Board was constituted, and it does not strike at the root of the difficulty with which you have to deal in the north-west of Scotland. We have the analogy of Ireland, where a Congested Districts Board is part of the policy of killing Home Rule by kindness. It seems to me that the Irish analogy should be more closely studied. There are conditions in the Highlands which depend upon the land question, and which depend upon something being done to carry out the recommendations of the Commission to which I have alluded. Even in this Report we see that proprietors have refused to give land. There is one point I should like the Lord Advocate to explain. He seemed to indicate in his remarks that it was impossible to place the crofters under the Crofters Act. There is a passage in this Report which seems to indicate that the Board endeavoured to do this in these new holdings. On page 10 there are these words—

"We propose that the lands to he assigned should be held by them under the Crofters Acts, but the proprietors objected, and ultimately it was arranged that a lease for thirty-one years should be granted to each tenant.

One rather infers from that that it was impossible to create what are practically new crofters' holdings. I gathered from the Lord Advocate's remarks——

What I said was that it was impossible for anyone to give a person the legal status of a crofter as under the Act. Of course it is possible to allow the rent to be fixed by arbitration under the Crofters' Commission.

All these difficulties would not necessarily have arisen if there had been in the hands of the Board far wider powers, which Members on this side of the House sought to confer when the Board was originally constituted. Looking at the proceedings of this Board I entirely agree with my hon. friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire that this is a very extravagant method of proceeding to the end in view. There is a very large sum of money mounting up for the purposes of this Board entirely under the discretion of what is practically the Scotch Office, and it would have been far more sensible if, before the Board was constituted, there had been some effort to indicate the policy the Board was to carry out, and to lay that policy before the country. I am sure if it had been plainly seen by the House how very far short of such a policy the powers of this Board would land them, we should have made a stronger effort to confer adequate powers to deal with the main difficulties of the question in the Highlands of Scotland.

The Lord Advocate referred to the remarks in the Report about Members having blocked the Bill of last session. The object of putting the passage in the Report was to create a feeling in the minds of the crofter constituencies against their representatives in Parliament. That is the undoubted object, and what is complained of is that it amounts almost to a breach of the privileges of this House for an outside body of this kind to comment in their official Report upon the actions of Members of Parliament with a view to creating a prejudice against them in their constituencies. Such a breach is all the more unjustifiable from the fact that it is in a document signed by the Secretary for Scotland himself—a member of the other House and a member of the Government—who has no possible excuse for making a charge of that kind against any Member of the House, or attempting in any degree to prejudice a Member of this House in the eyes of his constituents. The Lord Advocate referred to an inquiry he made of me. My answer was this: These purposes may be beneficial in themselves, but what the Scotch Members object to is that they should be provided for out of money intended for the purpose of settling crofters upon their holdings, and that was the reason the notices of opposition to the Bill were put down. We know the Secretary for Scotland is not in sympathy with the policy of migration; the policy of the Government is more emigration than migration. But this Government may not always be in power, and if they cannot find a way to apply the money to the purposes to which their own Act of Parliament directed it to be applied, very possibly there may be a future Government in power which will be able to do so. Why did you not extend your objects at first, instead of limiting them as you did? The other purposes are more of an educational kind, and when we come to the Education Votes I will refer the Lord Advocate to a sum of £80,000 that Scotland should have just now under your own Education Acts,

called attention to the dual offices hold by the Secretary to the Congested Districts Board. That gentleman was chief clerk in the Exchequer Office in Edinburgh, in which position he received a salary of £650, he received £150 a year for performing the duties of secretary to the Congested Districts Board, and there was a further sum of £150 a year which had to be paid to somebody to do the work which this gentleman was unable to do owing to his dual capacity. The hon. Member suggested that the two sums of £150 should be put together and used as a salary for a person who would give his whole time to the duties of secretary to the Board. This system of dual offices was a disgrace to a public Department, and it was time a protest was made. The Lord Advocate seemed to be under the impression that the Board was worked satisfactorily, but it had been clearly shown in the course of the evening that the secretary did his work in a most unsatisfactory manner. It was not easy to see how it could be otherwise while the secretary filled two or three, or, for aught the Committee knew, half a dozen offices. Members had a right to expect that the secretary should be acquainted with all that was going on in connection with the work of the Board, and when Mr. De Moleyns went up to the Island of Lewis it was the business of the secretary to have informed him what the state of matters was in connection with the potato spraying system there.