asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will be able to remove the temporary suspension of the Order in Council of the 29th March, 1881, and allow Royal Marine officers to voluntarily retire on pensions and gratuities?

It is hoped that as soon as the officers entered by direct commission become available for duty the suspension of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1881, may be removed. The first batch should be available for embarkation in a ship of war to complete their training by September, 1915, and the remaining batches will similarly become available year by year.

Am I to understand that the suspension of this Order in Council is not going to be removed until the date in 1915 mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?

It will not be removed until the officers entered by direct commission become available.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great hardship on individual officers caused by the suspension of this Order in Council?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.

asked whether the reason for suspending temporarily the Order in Council of the 29th March, 1881, is due to shortage of officers in the Royal Marines; and, if so, what is the cause of such shortage.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the shortage is due to the increasing requirements of the Fleet and to the greater length of the present course of training of officers before becoming available for general duty.

Is it not a fact that the shortage of officers is due to a very large extent to the fact that the Fisher scheme of entry, as it is known, has completely failed in regard to Royal Marine officers?

No, Sir. I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman the reasons for the shortage in the answer.

asked how, if at all, the duties and emoluments of the new deputy-surveyor of the Forest of Dean will differ from those of the present holder of that office?

The new deputy-surveyor of the Forest of Dean will be responsible, like the present holder of that office, for the local management of the forest. He will, however, be provided with responsible assistants particularly for estate management purposes, in order that he may be able to devote an adequate amount of time to the educational work arising from the utilisation of the forest as a forestry demonstration area, including occasional lectures to students and supervision of their practical studies. The present holder has a salary of £700, with house and land rent free and a small allowance of wood. He provides his own means of locomotion in the forest. The new deputy-surveyor will have a salary of £600, rising to £800, with a house and garden rent free, or alternatively a somewhat higher salary coupled with payment by him of a rent for the house and garden. He will also have a mileage allowance for expenses of moving about his district.

Does that mean that the deputy-surveyor will himself give lectures on forestry?

Yes. He will have charge of the educational arrangements in the forest and will give occasional lectures, though it will not be necessary for him to give a great deal of his time to lecturing.

asked on how many and on what occasions and to what extent there has been either an increase or a decrease in the Crown contribution in lieu of payment of rates in the Forest of Dean during the last twenty-five years?

The amount of the Crown contribution in lieu of rates in the Forest of Dean varies, of course, with the amount in the £ levied on private property and the area of forest land under inclosure from time to time; it also increases where new buildings are erected on Crown land and decreases when old buildings are demolished and not replaced. There has been a large increase during the last twenty-five years in the area inclosed, and each new inclosure has been followed by a new contribution by the same period in the rateable values of Crown properties, as fixed by the Treasury financial year 1913–14 was nearly double the amount paid twenty-five years ago. As regards increases or decreases in the same period in the rateable values of Crown properties, as fixed by the Treasury valuers, the changes have been as follows: In 1900 some additional inclosures were valued at 5s. an acre, as against 10s. an acre on older inclosures, the assessment of which was considered far too high but was left undisturbed for the time as temporary compromise. In 1909 a level rate of 6s. an acre over all inclosures was arranged for a period of five years, which has now expired, and a fresh valuation is being made.

asked whether the Government propose to reduce the contribution of the Crown to local rates in the Forest of Dean; if so, by what amount; and why, seeing that their royalty revenue has been steadily increasing and that they own the greater part of the property and wealth of the district, it has been decided to take a step which will throw an additional charge upon its poor and already burdened ratepayers?

The question what is the fair rateable value per acre of the woodlands is at present being inquired into by the Treasury valuer, who has also under consideration the rateable value of cottages which are alleged to be underrated, and of new buildings which have been erected by the Crown and have not yet been brought into account for rating purposes. I am unable to say whether the net result will on the whole be to diminish the amount of the Crown's total contribution or not. The local rates on mints are paid by the galees.

As there is a general opinion in the district that there is to be a reduction in the Crown contribution, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his opinion that is likely to be the result?

No. I have said in the answer that I cannot say whether there will be a reduction or not. It is impossible until the Treasury valuer has finished his work to find out whether it will be a larger or smaller sum which will be paid.

Is it not the case that the Government is generally assessed more largely in other places as the rates increase?

There is no exception, of course. The Treasury valuers follow exactly the same principles in the Forest of Dean as are employed elsewhere.

asked the Postmaster-General if postmen at Norwich are yet receiving the increased pay recommended by the Holt Committee; if not, can he say when the increase will come into operation; and whether it will be retrospective as from the end of January last?

The adjustments of pay under the Holt Committee's recommendations have not yet been carried out at Norwich, but the matter is in hand, and instructions for payment will be issued in the course of a few days. The improved scales will, of course, date back to the 2nd February last.

asked the Chairman of Ways and Means whether, in the case of the Glasgow Corporation (Water, Tramways, etc.) Provisional Order, an application was made by the agents for the promoters that, as the proposals in the Order were of great magnitude and of such a character, it be proceeded with in Parliament as a substituted Bill under the provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and not as a Provisional Order before a Commission sitting in Scotland?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any changes are contemplated in the place of the establishment of the headquarters of the Trinity House service in South Wales; and whether the removal of the tender "Ready" is contemplated from Cardiff to some other port?

The Trinity House propose to establish a central depot at Swansea in the place of their depots at Neyland and Cardiff and to dispose of the tender "Ready" and, as far as possible, to work the combined districts with one steamer only. These changes are proposed with a view to centralisation, efficiency, and economy in the South Wales district of the Trinity House service. I am informed by the Trinity House that it is not anticipated that the Swansea depot will be ready for occupation for about two years, and that in the meantime the tender will not be removed.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will consider the payment of wages to the men employed in the tender "Ready" of the Trinity House service at Cardiff weekly instead of as at present; and (2) whether he will consider the granting of permanent and certain leave every year to the men employed in the Trinity House service?

These are matters in the first place for the consideration of the Trinity House, with whom I am communicating.

asked whether an inquiry can be held into the scale of pay of the men employed in the Trinity House service, having in view the greatly increased cost of living?

The scale of pay of the men employed in the Trinity House service has only recently been improved, and I see no reason for further inquiry in the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has received the full Report of the "Empress of Ireland" Commission; and, in view of the importance of that Report in relation to safety of life at sea, if he will cause it to be published before the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Bill is submitted to the House for Third Reading?

The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the s.s. "Empress of Ireland" will be published as a Parliamentary Paper immediately on the receipt of the official copy from the Canadian authorities. My right hon. Friend cannot, however, undertake to delay the proceedings on the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Bill as suggested by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is proposed to found a National College of Agriculture for Scotland in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh; and, if so, has he considered what effect such a proposal will have upon the status of the existing agricultural colleges in Glasgow and Aberdeen?

I am not aware of any such proposal, but I understand that the governors of the Edinburgh Agricultural College are considering a suggestion for the transference of that college from the city to the country. I do not know what their decision will be, but I do not see why it should affect the status of the other colleges to which my hon. Friend refers.

Before any proposal is put forward that the students of Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities should go to Edinburgh, will the House have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it?

I have not heard of any proposal that the students should go to Edinburgh.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, when giving his decision to a deputation of the members of the Metropolitan borough of Bethnal Green with regard to the Brady Street area, he was aware of the fact that other areas whose sanitary conditions were not so bad as that of the area mentioned have been treated under Part I. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act; and whether, taking this fact into consideration and the paucity of funds at the disposal of this small borough, he will reconsider his decision and treat this area under Part I. instead of Part II. of the above-mentioned Act?

I have not yet given a decision in the matter referred to, and before doing so I shall certainly consider all relevant circumstances.

Owing to the unsatisfactory answer, I will raise this point on the Adjournment this evening.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, (1) whether the Commissioners have approved the maternity benefit claim form adopted by certain approved societies, on which the doctor or midwife who attended the case is required to certify the accuracy of the information given by the person claiming the benefit, and the bona fides of the claim; whether, in view of the fact that medical practitioners and midwives are not as a rule in a position to give this certificate, several insured persons have been unable to obtain the benefit they claim; and if it is proposed to prepare and cause to be adopted by all approved societies a common form of maternity benefit claim to which objection cannot be taken; and (2) whether he is aware that the National Amalgamated Approved Society has refused to pay the maternity benefit claim of Frederick W. Robinson, of 74, Linden Crescent, Folkestone, in respect of a confinement which took place on the 8th of December, 1913, on the ground that the doctor in attendance has refused to give a certificate of the bona fides of the claim and the accuracy of the information given by the claimant, as these are matters beyond his knowledge, and instead has given a certificate to the effect that he attended the confinement, which the society has refused to accept; whether he can take any steps to ascertain if the claimant is entitled to the benefit; and, if so, if he will direct that it be paid?

A model form for maternity claims has been issued, but the Commissioners have no power to require its adoption. In the case referred to the claim has now been paid, and the form in question is under revision.

Is it not the fact that doctors and midwives are required to vouchsafe information of which they cannot possibly have any knowledge?

In the case of the form to which the hon. Baronet refers that is so, but that form is being revised.

asked whether the auditors of the Insurance Commissioners require a certificate of marriage to be produced in the case of every claim for maternity benefit; and, if so, whether, seeing that the model rules of an approved society as provided for by the Insurance Act, and approved by the Com missioners, state that a society may, if it so requires but not otherwise, demand the production of such certificate, the Com missioners will dispense with the production of such certificate when the society's officials deem it to be unnecessary?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 25th June to the hon. Member for the Gorton Division.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether the attention of the Insurance Commissioners has been directed to the case of a farm labourer, a deposit contributor in the jurisdiction of the Newent District Committee, who fell ill in February last, having £2 0s. 5d. to his credit; whether, on application for two weeks' benefit at 10s., he was sent a postal order for 17s. 2d. only; whether he is aware that the man died on 5th March, leaving a wife and seven children, and that on 2nd May the postman delivered seven separate envelopes directed to the widow and six of the seven children each containing two circulars and two postal orders, those for the widow being for 3s. 10d. and 2s. 2d., and for each of the six children 1s. 3d. and 9d., a total of 18s.; whether it is intended to pay over, and to whom, the remaining 5s. 3d.; what payment will be made to the seventh child; and whether the normal procedure has been followed in this case?

The case to which the hon. Member refers is probably one in which a contributor who died on 5th March, 1914, had a balance of £1 13s. 9d. standing to his credit at the date of his sickness in February, 1914. The insurance committee certified for payment of sickness benefit for twelve days, and a sum of 17s. 2d. was accordingly sent to the contributor. After his death the committee certified for a further payment of sickness benefit for eight days to the date of death. The usual inquiries were made by the committee, and on their certificate supporting a claim on behalf of the widow and six children the Insurance Commissioners paid over the amount of the outstanding sickness benefit together with the statutory proportion of four-sevenths of the balance remaining in the account.

Is it the case that fourteen postal orders of small amounts from 9d. to 3s. 10d. were sent to the widow and six children, and, if that is so, why was the seventh child not allowed to receive anything?

I do not know about the seventh child. As regards the other children, they are each paid a fair proportion of the sum belonging to the deceased person.

Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries about the seventh child?

Yes, I will. I fancy a mistake was made about that child.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were killed in the Metropolitan Police area and the City during the first six months of the year by each class of vehicle using the streets?

During the period mentioned 242 persons were killed—fifty-five by horse vehicles, fifty-five by motor omnibuses, fifteen by tramcars, nineteen by motor cabs, forty-five by private motor cars, thirty-five by commercial motor vehicles, fourteen by motor cycles, and four by other cycles.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will at once issue for circulation among Members those Reports for 1013 from the inspectors of mines which have not yet been issued?

All the reports have been out for some time. The last two were issued on the 17th of July. I understand that in accordance with the general rule applicable to the distribution of Command Papers, they are not circulated to Members, but can be obtained by Members interested on application at the Vote Office.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the inquest held at Maidenhead on the body of William Walter England, a young man of twenty-two, who received his fatal injuries at a boxing match, advertised as a champion fight for £25 a side, and which took place at the Maidenhead Hippodrome last Wednesday night; whether the Home Office has power to prohibit these exhibitions; and what is the intention of the Home Office in the matter?

I have made inquiries, and am informed that the facts are as stated. The jury found that the deceased was accidentally killed by a blow on the temple inflicted in a lawful boxing contest. The Home Office has no power to prohibit lawful boxing exhibitions.

Then, the sport of cock fighting is prohibited, and the sport of man fighting is encouraged?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when it is pro posed to take the Committee stage of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill?

As soon as the report on the necessary money Resolution has been carried, and I trust that the hon. Member and his friends will assist us in carrying that Resolution without further opposition.

May I ask whether the provisions of this Bill are not considerably affected by the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the urgency of the question, he will use his influence with the courts of law to expedite the hearing of the appeal that has been lodged against the validity of the proclamation against the importation of arms?

I have done my best to expedite the hearing of this appeal, but it has been found impossible to constitute a Court, and the appeal cannot now be heard until after the Long Vacation.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that all the judges are at present in Dublin?

It is all very well to say that, but I have done my best to constitute a court. I am not quite sure how long the case might last, and, therefore, there are difficulties which I wish very much I could overcome.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the exact mileage from the point of debarkation at which the police have orders to refrain from seizing arms or other contraband matter in Ireland?

It is not a question of mileage at all, but of the police interference after disembarkation has been completely effected.

In the case of other contraband goods once they are landed, are they safe?

No, Sir. The hon. Member has failed to make a distinction between the right of search by Customs officials for articles which are Customable, and which are supposed to have evaded duty, and the right of search which is supposed to belong to the police.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the defenceless condition of the Protestant minority in the, southern provinces of Ireland owing to their obedience to the Proclamation against the importation of arms; and whether he will direct the Irish Government to remove the embargo and allow the minority adequate opportunity of immediately obtaining the arms necessary to their defence?

I think the hon. Member's description of the Protestants in the southern provinces is misleading, for, though undoubtedly in a great minority, I do not believe that anything will occur to place their lives and property in danger. The validity of the Proclamation is still under legal review.

If the Chief Secretary was a prudent man and a southern Protestant, would he not like to be possessed of a rifle.

May I ask if a number of Catholic Unionists in the South of Ireland are in as much danger as Protestants?

I believe that is so. They are both in the same position.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many Irish regiments are at present stationed in Ire land; if he will state the number of Irish regiments that have been removed from Ireland within the last two years; the names of the said regiments; the dates of their removal; and the names of the regiments by which they were replaced?

There are at present two Irish regiments stationed in Ireland, the 5th Royal Irish Lancers and the 2nd Battalion Leinster Regiment. Only one Irish regiment has left Ireland in the ordinary course of relief during the last two years, namely, the 2nd Battalion Connaught Rangers, who were relieved by the 2nd Battalion Suffolk Regiment in September, 1913.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing the Royal Dublin Fusiliers to Ireland?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the withdrawal of the Imperial troops from Ulster or any part of Ireland is contemplated in the immediate future?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the six years, 1908–13, nearly one and a-half million of children have been legally exempted from vaccination in England and Wales under the provisions of the Vaccination Act, 1907; and whether, in view of the popularity of that measure and the wishes of the people as demonstrated through its working, he will endeavour to get the Vaccination Acts (Repeal) Bill, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Biggleswade, passed next Session?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I cannot make any promise with regard to next Session's legislation.

asked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to lay before the House their proposals with regard to the reform of the Second Chamber?

We hope to be able to do so at a comparatively early date in August.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the question of granting ammunition to rifle clubs either free or at reduced prices has now been under the consideration of the War Office for nearly three years, and that more than a year ago a definite decision was promised without delay, he will now announce the decision at which the War Office have arrived?

As stated in reply to the hon. Member on the 1st July last year by my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State, this question forms part of the much wider question of the future position of rifle clubs and associations in relation to the Army. With every desire to accelerate the settlement of all the points involved, the Army Council are unable to give any immediate decision except in a negative sense, but, as I have previously stated, the matter is still not finally decided.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an answer was given recently in which it was stated that an answer to the question would be given during the present Session?

I am aware of that. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter which has been the subject of difficult and delicate negotiation between the War Office and the associations for the past two years. This is rather a subsidiary point in connection with the subject.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks it possible that an answer may be given this Session?

It would be very difficult for me to give an answer to that question at present. In the event of the Committee reporting in the direction which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman desires, namely, that ammunition to rifle clubs should be supplied free or at reduced prices, that would be a matter for the Treasury to consider.

Would not the desire of those persons to learn rifle shooting be much sooner gratified if they would join the Territorial Force instead of remaining outside of it?

That is so.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether a Mr. Barefoot, employed for many years in the Woolwich Arsenal, who died lately, was at the time of his death entitled to a bonus of £80; whether this sum or any part of it had been paid over to his widow; and, if not, will he state why?

I cannot identify the individual case which the hon. Member has in mind, but under the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1887, gratuities can only be granted to men discharged under certain specified conditions and cannot be given to the widow of a man who dies while still employed.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are going to be taken to alter the Superannuation Act as suggested a year ago?

That question ought not to be addressed to me, but the War Office has expressed its opinion upon it.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he has communicated with the Bank of England with the view to their convening a meeting of bankers to take steps to deal with the present financial position; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of so doing without further delay?

I have been in consultation with the Bank of England, and I am advised that there is nothing in the financial situation at the present moment which would make such a suggestion necessary or advisable.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information in regard to the European situation to give to the House?

As the House is aware, a formal Declaration of War was issued yesterday by Austria against Servia. The situation at this moment is one of extreme gravity. I can only say, usefully say, that His Majesty's Government are not relaxing their efforts to do everything in their power to circumscribe the area of possible conflict.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any information as to the alleged revolutionary outbreak in Russian Poland?

No, Sir.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary a question, of which I have given him notice: Who, in addition to the Under-Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—was present when the Minute relating to the gun-running incident was prepared; on what date and at what hour was the Minute signed; and on what date, at what hour, was it sent to the office of the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and when was it received by Mr. Harrel?

The Lord Chancellor was present when the Minute was prepared on Sunday, the 26th. The exact time of signature is not on record, but probably it was shortly before five o'clock. It was sent to the Dublin Metropolitan Police office in Dublin Castle at once, and was opened by the late Chief Commissioner, who was then in the office. It was sent by bicyclist to Mr. Harrel, who tells me that he received it about 5.45 o'clock.

I should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether there is any foundation for the statement made in several of the Dublin papers yesterday that Mr. Harrel was at that moment in the Kildare Street Club?

I do not know to what time the hon. Member refers, and I cannot answer the question. It was 5.45 when he received the message. He was at the Amiens Street station after the incident bad occurred, directing the police who were returning to barracks from Howth.

I would press the right hon. Gentleman on this point, and if he has not the information I would press him to obtain it, as to whether as a fact when Mr. Harrel was asked to attend in the Under-Secretary's office in the Castle he was at that moment in the Kildare Street Club.

I cannot answer that.

Is it not the case that the House was led to understand that that Minute was sent immediately after the meeting at Dublin Castle about 2.45, and does it not now appear that it was only written after the incident was practically over?

The Minute was prepared at the time which I have indicated. It was after various attempts had been made from Dublin Castle to find out the whereabouts of Mr. Harrel, and, those attempts having failed, the Minute was prepared at the time I have indicated, shortly before five o'clock. It was then sent over to the police office as I have described. I have no knowledge of the chronology of the case, and I am not in any way responsible for any impression that may have been created.

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary gave the House to understand that they had endeavoured to get Mr. Harrel to give him this Minute, when, as a fact, it had not been prepared until the whole thing was over?

No. If Sir James Dougherty had been able to get hold of Mr. Harrel he would have given him the Minute by word of mouth.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he could have given him the contents of a Minute before it was written?

Because what Sir James Dougherty would have done would have been to prohibit, as far as he could, Mr. Harrel from invoking the intervention of the military.

I desire to ask the Chief Secretary again whether, in the efforts to obtain Mr. Harrel before the Minute was written, a search was made for him at the Kildare Street Club?

I do not want in any way to make statements of a kind which I am not in a position to verify, nor am I at all desirous of making any statements affecting Mr. Harrel. The whole subjectmatter is under review. Sir James Dougherty, when he comes to give any evidence, will be better able than I am to state the efforts that he made through the telephone to get hold of Mr. Harrel, and to say where Mr. Harrel was at any particular moment.

I beg to give notice that I shall repeat this question, and I ask the Chief Secretary to obtain the information for this House: Whether at the time Mr. Harrel was summoned to attend at the Castle to receive the orders of the Executive Government he was in the Kildare Street Club, the headquarters of the Unionist party in Dublin?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will obtain further information for the House, in deference to the request made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. Will he at the same time inform us, or inform us now if he can, in the first place at what hour the Lord Chancellor arrived at the Castle, and in the second place how the Under-Secretary knew what steps had been taken by Mr. Harrel on his own responsibility to deal with the men "now marching into Dublin"? The passage in the Minute is this:—

"As regards the steps which you have taken on your own responsibility to deal with the arms landed at Howth this morning, His Excellency is advised that forcible disarmament of the men now marching into Dublin with these arms should not in all the circumstances be attempted."

When did they get that information? From what source did they get it, and why could they not in any case, when they got the information, communicate with the troops, with the police, and with Mr. Harrel?

I have addressed identical questions yesterday, though not in exactly the same language, to the Under-Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, and when I get the information I will certainly give it.

I must ask the Chief Secretary how it was possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—that the Minute which was written after the event could contain the words "troops now marching into Dublin?"

Everybody knows that they were marching into Dublin, and Mr. Harrel in his first communication by telephone told Sir James Dougherty, who was then in his house in the Phœnix Park at two o'clock, that this was so. [HON. MEMBERS: "This was five o'clock!"] The whole thing arose out of Mr. Harrel receiving that information, and deeming it to be his duty to act in a particular way upon it. All I say is that Sir James Dougherty was down at the Castle at 2.45, and if Mr. Harrel had then come across him he would have received from Sir James Dougherty, not in the form of a Minute, but in the form of words, exactly what afterwards was put on the Minute.

Is it not the case that the Minute which contained the words "steps which you have taken" bears upon its face evidence that it was written after definite steps had been taken and after it was recognised that it was impossible to stop those steps?

People must form their own judgment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why it was that, as stated by him, he received no information as to the occurrence in Dublin until Monday morning?

That is not so at all. I received the information on Sunday of what had taken place. On Monday morning the first thing I did was to telegraph to ascertain why the military had been employed.

If the right hon. Gentleman is reported as having said that when the news first reached him on Monday morning his first inclination was to suspend Sir John Boss, will he say was that an error on the part of the reporter or of himself?

Very likely it may have been an error on the part of myself. I am not going to accuse any reporter or anybody else.

Upon whose authority did the Under-Secretary convey that very definite order to Mr. Harrel?

On the authority of the Lord Lieutenant.

Where was Sir John Ross when this search was made for Mr. Harrel?

I cannot answer that question. All I know is that when the Minute was sent from Dublin Castle about five o'clock, Sir John Ross was in his office.

I rise in place of the hon. Member for Buteshire, who is unable, I regret, to be present, and it devolves upon me to start the Debate on this particular Vote. It will be my duty, as it has been on more than one occasion in this House, to express very vigorously my views upon the Scottish Land Court, and I do not withdraw a single word of what I have said about it. But I am glad to be able on this occasion to acknowledge that there seems to be a decided improvement in the conduct of their business. Their unjudicial remarks have been complained of more than once—

On a point of Order. I wish to ask, Sir, whether criticisms will be allowed on the procedure of the Land Court under this Vote? As you are aware, Sir, the members of the Land Court are in a judicial position, and therefore, as their salaries are not in this Vote, any obiter dicta from them in the discharge of their duties cannot come under the Vote we are discussing. As only the expenses are included in this Vote, and those are the expenses of the Court, I wish to ask whether any criticism can be allowed on the judicial conduct of members of the Court?

On the point of Order. Last year, before proceeding to discuss the Vote, you, Sir, ruled, and the Speaker has ruled since, that although the salaries are not on the Vote, and although we cannot discuss the action of individual Members, we are entitled on this Vote to discuss the procedure and work of the Court as a whole.

The hon. Baronet is quite correct in regard to the decision which I gave last year; he has quite accurately quoted it. Although it is true that the salaries and expenses are on the Consolidated Fund, that does not take away from the Committee the right to criticise the general procedure and work of the Court.

This point of Order has been raised three times, and dealt with on each occasion; and I proceed to say what I was trying to say when the hon. Member interrupted me, namely, that I am entitled to make the statement that I made formerly as to the conduct of the Land Court and their method of procedure. They are much more fair towards witnesses and much more inclined to hear them; but though their methods have improved, I am afraid the results are exactly the same as before, and there appears to be an undoubted bias, which—

Is the hon. Baronet entitled to allege bias?

I did not catch the word. The hon. Baronet correctly stated himself the nature of the criticism which might be brought against the work of the Court, and that precludes any kind of charge being made which cannot be made against the judge of the Court.

I withdraw the expression, and I will content myself by saying that, although their methods show an improvement, the results are exactly the same as before. The duties of the Land Court are mainly to determine judicial rents, and to hear and pronounce upon schemes presented to the Court. The Land Court has been very much occupied during the last year in dealing with the question of fixing rents. They complain of the length of time which that has involved, and of the very great increase of work which naturally arose from the increase of rental from £30 to £50, which resulted in bringing in a large number of holdings which were exempt under the Crofters Act, in addition to all the other holdings in the other parts of Scotland, with which they have to deal. In dealing with the whole question of rents, and also with that of schemes, a great deal of litigation has arisen, largely because the interpretation put upon the Act by the Court has been very, very wide, and a large number of questions of great importance have had to be decided on appeal by the Court of Session. The constitution, for example, of a holding consisting mainly of a dwelling house with a little bit of land, perhaps half an acre or an acre, naturally, of course, raises the question of legal interpretation, and it appeared to be to anyone who intelligently regarded it as a very excessive stretching of the law. Undoubtedly the terms of the Act are extremely wide, and it may be that the Court was perfectly justified in a case of that sort in creating such holdings as statutory small holdings. Such, I think, was not contemplated by the framers of the Act, and it was very obvious that in cases of the kind questions of importance would arise which would have to be decided by the Court of Session. In the first three or four appeals the Land Court decisions on the particular questions were upheld, and they legitimately and naturally with a certain amount of pride call attention to that in their Report, and describe at length the decision in those cases, and their own decisions with regard to them. It struck me when I read the Report that it was rather a mercy it ended on 31st December, and was not brought up to date as the Land Court has had two very severe falls since that time. I think if the Report was up to date that they would pass over in comparative obscurity the four smaller points on which they were successful. Their decisions have been condemned by the Court of Session in those two cases.

On a point of Order. I wish to know the exact position. The hon. Baronet is now discussing the decision in the first place of the Land Court in regard to the interpretation of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, and he goes into the number of cases which have been appealed to the Court of Session and the number of cases that have been reversed. If he criticises the decisions of the Land Court, are we entitled to discuss the decisions of the Court of Session, because the position of the Court of Session is exactly the same as this Court since the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Session are on the Consolidated Fund and the expenses on the Votes.

Are these cases that have been decided by the Court of Session appealable to the House of Lords; if so, those cases may still be sub judice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

I do not really know how that can be a point of Order. I am not discussing the Court of Session. I am discussing merely the fact that in this Report which we are entitled to discuss, the Land Court register the fact that four of the cases taken to the Court of Session on appeal were decided in their favour. I am merely saying that two more have been decided against the Land Court by the Court of Session, and two cases of very much greater importance than those alluded to in the Report. I do so in order to make good my point, as to which I made a previous complaint, against the Land Court's administration of this Statute. As far as I can see that does not involve any question of judges' salaries or anybody else's salaries. It is a mere matter of administration.

Is this not a question of distinction between interpretation and administration?

May I submit my hon. Friend is doing no more than is constantly being done in referring to decisions such as that in the Lumsden case, and with regard to other cases arising out of the 1909–10 Finance Act.

I have the fortune or misfortune not to be a Scottish lawyer, and I must do my best. I did not understand the hon. Baronet to do anything more than relate facts, and nothing, I think, was said in the nature of criticism of the judicial acts of this Court.

The fact is that those two hon. Members opposite know-that they have such a very bad case in supporting this Court that they are extremely nervous of what anyone may say on this subject. The best proof that my complaints are well founded is the nervous attitude of the hon. Members opposite.

What is your contention?

I am addressing the House of Commons and not the hon. Member.

Only the Committee.

Say what you mean.

I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to charge me with not saying what I mean. I always say straight out what I mean. I told the hon. Member just now and I am quite prepared to do so again should the necessity arise. I have said all I wanted to say on this point and I am glad, Sir, you allowed me to go on without any serious interruption. With regard to the very important question of the fixing of statutory rents in the case of small holdings by the Court there is really some explanation due I think as to the principles on which they proceed and continue to fix those rents as they are doing. I quite admit it would be impossible and quite unfair to discuss the very large reductions of rent which have been made by the Land Court in the case of certain statutory tenants, and in the course of fixing first fair rents, because the facts are not before us. We have no information as to why those reductions were made, and it might be that the grounds for those reductions were in many or most cases quite reasonable. It is impossible to say, as we do not know the details, but one thing that strikes me with great force, and I have mentioned it before, is that equally great reductions, or very nearly as great reductions, are being made by the Land Court on rents valued by their predecessors, the Crofters' Commission, within the last few years, and, in face of the fact, which everybody knows, that the whole of the produce of those crofts, both in stock and cereals, have improved in price during the period, and that agriculture is much more flourishing in Scotland than it has been in past years when those rents were fixed as being suitable as fair rents, and that, therefore, there cannot on the face of it be any sound reason for the enormous reductions which are being made on those valued rents by their predecessors in the Crofters' Commission. One is entitled to deduce from that fact, at all events, a doubt as to whether, as we do not think those reductions are quite fair, the other reductions are not entitled to be placed in a similar category. I do think the Committee is entitled to complain that the Land Court in this Report are absolutely silent as to the principles on which they are acting. Why should the country not know the principles on which they are acting? Why should they not disclose their reasons, not in every individual case, but generally their reasons for acting as they are doing, and what are the grounds for these enormous reductions on the rents fixed by the Crofters' Commission?

I thought they were getting near to saying something in one part of this Report on the question of rent when they made the remark that the average man did not understand the difference between equitable rent and fair rent. I am pretty certain that if the Land Court know the difference there is nothing in their decisions to show that they do. "Equitable rent" is a term imported into the Small Landholders Act in connection with statutory tenancies where improvements were made by the landlord, in order to make it perfectly clear that ordinary commercial rents would be fixed in dealing with those tenancies. We wanted to rule out any question of competitive or sentimental rents on the one side, and the extreme oh which fair rent is fixed on the other, leaving the ordinary market rent as the rent to be fixed in dealing with these statutory small holders. I see no sign whatever in any of the decisions which are known to me that the slightest difference is made by the Land Court between an equitable rent and a fair rent. I presume that this remark that the ordinary man does not understand the difference between the two is intended to cover the fact that they themselves do not recognise it. It may be held in Jaw—the case has not been decided—that the Statute itself makes no difference. What I say is that those who framed the Statute, those who were responsible for it as part of the bargain made at the time, intended that there should be a very considerable difference, and it is very unfortunate that they have not succeeded in making that clear. It was not the intention of Parliament at the time that there should not be an entire difference in the fixing of rents in the two cases.

With regard to the general procedure of the Land Court, I complained on the Second Reading of the recent measure, which is still on the Paper, but which does not seem to be in a very flourishing state, that the inspections made by the Land Court in the fixing of these rents were not at all of a satisfactory kind. No inspection can be of any use at all in deciding on the fertility of land unless it is made in the season of the year when the crops are in the ground. To go in the middle of winter, in a snowstorm or a fog, and dig down a few inches into the land and judge what is its natural fertility may be possible for some geniuses, but it is not possible, I think, for the ordinary human being. So long as the Land Court themselves, with their very limited staff, attempt to make these inspections over the whole of Scotland, and so long as they are tied up doing as they have been doing in that particular respect, just so long will there be great complaints of the delay which arises in the formation of small holdings. As it does not seem at all probable that we shall have an Amending Act this year, I think the Secretary for Scotland would be well advised if he would speed up the working of the old Act by getting the Land Court to delegate to someone else these particular powers of inspection and rent fixing, which occupy such a tremendous amount of their time. It is a perfectly easy thing to do. There is no reason in the world why the sheriff, sitting with a couple of agricultural assessors, knowing the local position, understanding the locality, knowing the conditions of his own district ten thousand times better than any member of the Land Court can ever do, and taking into account everything that the Act provides shall be taken into account, should not only fix the rents to the much greater satisfaction of everybody concerned, but also relieve the Land Court of this enormous burden of work which is occupying most of their time and taking them away from work which everybody would like to see them able to discharge more expeditiously than they do. I throw out that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I have done so before. It probably would not have been necessary if an Amending Act had been passed this year, but, as that is not at all likely to take place, the proceedings will certainly be much delayed unless some such scheme of delegation is undertaken.

I do not know that I have much more to say on this particular question. The Vote for the Board of Agriculture is probably more important; there are many more subjects to be dealt with on that Vote, and a certain amount of time is required for the other Votes. While I am glad to acknowledge an improvement in the methods of the Land Court, I am not: at all satisfied yet with the result of much of their work, and I do not think that anybody will be satisfied until we know the principles on which they are working. Is it too much to ask that we should be told? I know the Secretary for Scotland has repeatedly said in this House that the Land Court are independent of him, and that he has no control over them. That is quite true, and I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would attempt to exercise a control which he does not possess. But a hint from him would be very valuable, and I cannot believe that such a hint would be ignored by the Land Court. I think they would be ready if they could to act upon it, more particularly if he held out any prospect of relieving them of an enormous amount of work by enabling them to do what the Act entitles them to do, namely, to delegate their powers in this respect. Let the Secretary for Scotland not forget that at the present moment one member of the Court is really doing this work. In one case I think he sat without any assessors; in other cases I think he sat with two assessors. A single member of the Court is doing it now; he is detached from more important work in Edinburgh, and sent to do it. Surely sheriffs with local knowledge, assisted by two local assessors, are just as competent as any member of the Land Court to undertake that duty, and give a decision in the matter. It could be done with perfect simplicity and ease. It might be either the sheriff or the sheriff-substitute. Many of the sheriffs have lots of spare time; they are not overburdened with work; and I am sure they would do this work quite satisfactorily. Such an arrangement would, at all events, assist in speeding up the other work of the Court, by which the House lays so much store, and which I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite so much desires to see carried out as speedily as possible.

I think, in the first place, I ought to offer the hon. Baronet opposite my sympathy on his failure to make the case which he would have liked to have made this afternoon. We all understand on what ground the Opposition have selected the Land Court Vote as the first Vote for criticism to-day. We know that the Land Court is an object of special aversion, and that it has carried out its duties in a way which is obnoxious to them. The hon. Baronet has made that perfectly clear by certain expressions which he used this afternoon—expressions which you, Sir, have declared to be out of order.

Only one of them.

The Chairman certainly described one of them which he heard as out of order, and I am sure he would have visited with the same condemnation certain other expressions if he had had the good fortune to hear them. I think he would have described as equally out of order the statement regarding injudicial remarks on the Bench.

On a point of Order and of grammar, I said unjudicial.

I apologise to the hon. Baronet.

I like to be grammatical.

I sympathise with the hon. Baronet's touchiness on this point also. I quite understand that he feels his position keenly, and that, having failed to make his speech, he naturally resents any attribution to him of a slight failing in grammar. I am very sorry that I attributed a word to him that he did not use. It was purely a slip of the tongue on my part, and I hope the hon. Baronet will accept my apology. It is certainly the last thing that I would accuse the hon. Baronet of being guilty of, but I would say that his expressions indicated clearly the object of this attack upon the Land Court. The reasons for that attack were perfectly clear. The Land Court has largely reduced rents in respect of holdings over which it has jurisdiction. That, of course, is obnoxious to the party who are here to defend the interests of the landlords. The members of the Land Court have had the temerity in the course of their proceedings to treat factors, landlords, and land agents as if they were ordinary men. That, again, is a proceeding which should be visited with the most severe reprobation by anyone who represents the landlord interest in this House. The hon. Baronet objects that the Land Court have indicated no principle upon which they have acted in regard to the reduction of rents. He asserts that they have failed to make any distinction between what he calls a fair and an equitable rent. There, again, the hon. Baronet is entitled to sympathy. I believe he is the parent of the term "equitable rent"?

No, I am not.

Then, perhaps, the hon. Baronet is one of the putative parents?

It was the Lord Advocate, if you want to know!

I think the Lord Advocate and the hon. Baronet collaborated, and the term "equitable rent" was the result of their unnatural collaboration. However, he says that it was the intention of the House of Commons that something different from a fair rent should be established, and the term "equitable rent" was used. He says that the House of Commons meant an equitable rent to be a commercial rent, but not a competitive rent. I always understood that any commercial value, whether it was of land or of any other commodity, was a competitive value.

That is exactly where you are wrong. It is not always.

I shall be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understood that these values in commerce were determined by competition for the article which was being bought, sold or hired, and that it was only as a result of competition that you arrive either at a commercial price or at a commercial rent. It seems to me that in the circumstances when the hon. Baronet says we meant an equitable rent to be a commercial rent and not a competitive rent that he, although not guilty of any failure in grammar—the last thing of course of which I would accuse him—is certainly liable to confusion in language. The hon. Baronet having failed to deal with the actual merits of the Land Court, was able at the end to reach a somewhat safer ground, and a ground which was really relevant to the Vote which we are now discussing, namely, the general procedure of the Land Court. He brought forth once again the one leading case which he has against the Court—a celebrated visit which the Land Court paid to a somewhat remote district in the North of Scotland where a snow storm was raging. He described how on one single occasion these gentlemen cleared a small patch of land where there was a few inches of snow, and were thereby able to discover, according to themselves, the natural fertility of the soil!

That is really the gravamen of his whole indictment against the procedure of this body, that the Members went, probably not foreseeing the state of the weather—that is to say, not knowing that in the North of Scotland a snow storm might be raging on their arrival—and not willing that the public money should be wasted decided, even under those conditions, to do their best to fulfil their very difficult functions. It is because of this that we now have the Opposition this afternoon raising the procedure of the Land Court as the first, most important, and most vital issue which can be raised on the Scottish Estimates. We all, of course, know the real ground. It was not the snow storm. It was these reductions of rent which have brought joy to the hearts of the small holders in Scotland. I was surprised indeed to find the hon. Baronet this afternoon offering an apology for the actions of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. H. Hope), who, he said, had intended to raise this question.

I did not say he would raise the question. I said he intended to speak. I do not know what he-was going to say.

He was not going to raise the question. He would certainly not be representing the views of the electors of Buteshire, and particularly of those resident in the island of Arran, by a speech like that of the hon. Baronet. I am inclined to think that his absence this afternoon, and the delegation of the duty to the hon Baronet the Member for the Ayr Burghs, may be explained by a perfectly natural and obvious reason—that there is a General Election not very far off. For any Member for Buteshire to make an attack upon the Land Court on the ground of the reduction of rents would be the last thing to commend him to the electors of Buteshire.

I confess I am not surprised at the type of speeches which have conic from the opposite side of the House on the question of small holdings. I understand, and perhaps the House can understand, the reason why the hon. Member who has just sat down professes at least to be suspicious of the choice of this Vote as the first one to be discussed, because judging from what we have heard from him, both here and in Committee, I do not think he has yet appreciated the fact that one of the most important things—although I dare say he has said it in speeches on the platform—to be pushed forward in Scotland are small holdings; therefore one of the most important Votes in the Scottish Estimates is the question of small holdings. Some people always feel the electioneering platform influence: they do not play for anything else. They do not see or understand how other people can speak on the land question. So far as I am concerned, at any rate, I welcome this chance of discussing this Vote because I think by some suggestions we may be able to expedite and make more simple the promotion of small holdings in Scotland. Everybody knows that there is very grave delay in the operations of the Land Court, and some reasons far that are fairly obvious. There is congestion. One thing which is probably at the root of the evil of delay—and which I think speeches like that to which we have just listened undoubtedly contribute—is the enmity which is attempted to be stirred up against the landlords, and which naturally makes them look with unfavourable eyes on the creation of small holdings, and makes them more suspicion of the Land Court than they are at the present time. The opposite policy is the right one. I think every sensible person would agree that it is desirable to make as clear as possible—and as the easiest way in which small holdings can be formed—the principles on which the Land Court acts. That would encourage landlords, amongst other things, to agree with their tenants upon the formation of small holdings, and save the necessity of litigation, and the necessity of going to the Land Court. Even though I be a lawyer I think that is what had best be done.

One of the reasons for the congestion in the Land Court is their failure—a failure adverted to by the hon. Baronet—to give grounds for the reduction of rents—which have only been too numerous, as far as one can judge. If the reason for, or the principle on which, the Land Court reduced the rents were made known, not only to the landlord, but also to the tenants, undoubtedly there would be a better chance of the landlords and tenants agreeing without the necessity of litigation. On the other hand, by the apparent slicing off of about 20, 25, or 30 per cent., without any reason given as regards special cases, you are encouraging the tenant in the hope of getting ninepence for fourpence. Without giving reasons, good or bad, this is likely to put landlords against the Act. I think this is a very unfortunate situation. One thing that undoubtedly would save this congestion to a considerable extent would be if the Land Court would explain the principles—for surely they have principles!—upon which they act in the reduction of the rents which they have almost invariably given effect to. One other reason, I think, of delay is that the absence of giving their principles increases their work. Apart altogether from the question of agreement with the landlord you would have fewer cases. It is a familiar thing in the Law Courts to have cases that establish a leading principle which will apply to a great many cases—which are thereby obviated. We do not find that in the Land Court. That is one of my greatest complaints against it. Something was said about appeal to the Court of Session. I would remind the Committee that these appeals are on points of law only. The Land Court is final as to questions of fact. In a case which is stated for appeal to the Court of Session the facts are stated by the Land Court itself. They prepare the statement of facts upon which the question of law is asked.

One regard in which they have shown great and serious delay is in respect to the revisal of these stated cases. The hon. Member opposite referred to the Arran case. It is just a year since these cases were decided by the Land Court, who were asked to state a case. That case has not been stated yet by the Land Court, and there is no immediate prospect of it being ready for the Court of Session. Those who are familiar with the facts will know that some eighty-six cases altogether were concerned, because the Land Court would not agree to having a test case. Very important principles were concerned. A whole year has been lost—taken up, I should say, because, undoubtedly, some of the cases would take up a reasonable time. I think that is another good instance of the kind of thing which increases the congestion in the Land Court and causes delay and a great deal of heart-burning amongst the applicants, a great many of whom are waiting now. If any suggestion that we can make to-day whether from these or the opposite benches will save that delay, I trust it will be welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think will certainly justify our putting this Vote down as the first Vote for discussion.

The points which have been raised seem to me, in the first place, to suggest that the rents have been lowered in too many eases and to too great an extent. I was amazed to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken speak of the reductions of rent being only too numerous, as far as he could judge. Anyone familiar with the rents which still prevail in many parts of Scotland will be very much surprised at the last statement—that is, if he has the interests of the people at heart. I observed, too, that the hon. Baronet who spoke first made various observations about rents, and put forward what, to my mind, was rather a new theory. His complaint seemed to be that although prices of farm produce have rather gone up in recent years, that rents have nevertheless been reduced. I would like to point out—

May I remind the hon. Member that I was dealing entirely with the question of rents fixed by the Crofters' Commission and revised by the Land Court; not with rents as fixed first by the Land Court.

I understood the hon. Member to deal with both cases.

No. I dealt with one; I only mentioned the other.

I quite agree with the hon. Baronet's suggestion, and he knows I wish to do him justice, but in this particular instance, when you take the case of rent fixed some years back, it is lower now and why not in future, if the justice of the case requires it? I do not see what the price of produce has to do with it. The hon. Baronet must remember that this produce is grown, not for the market, but for the use of the people themselves, and in some cases with the increased price of the produce there has been an increase in the price of the things necessary to grow that produce, and we must remember that these rents as they stand are often far higher when compared with other parts of the island. I venture to say if you go round the small land holders of Scotland and compare the land in their areas with other areas in quantity and quality, you will find the small land holder's position far more inferior and that his rates are on a far higher valuation than the others are.

Another observation made was that you should not value the land in winter, but when the crops are in the ground. If that was made universal we would be told that these crops were not the result of the natural fertility of the land, but of the money and the improvements which in many cases the landlord has made. That is the very thing brought up against the procedure under another Act with which the hon. Baronet is familiar. I say the valuation must be made fairly all the year round if you are to get the work through. So far as the suggestion goes that the reasons ought to be given for these decisions, if the Court were to be made to give reasons for fixing certain rents on certain property in every case the labour would be far greater. The only way the Land Court can act is to deal with a case fairly upon its merits, and that is what they seem to me to be doing. As to the distinction between a fair and an equitable rent, it seems to be a distinction of words rather than of fact. I believe the word "equitable" was put into the Act in order that we might conceal in that some supposed technical significance of a fair rent, but the real distinction between equitable and fair rent is too fine a distinction for anyone to master.

The work which the Land Court is doing is very important. We regret it is not able to get through more work, but it seems to me that that work in many cases is very difficult. If the Land Court was strengthened, as was proposed by a Bill in the present Session, then the Land Court would be able to undertake its work better, and to visit more parts of the country than it has been able to do up to the present. It does seem to me that the charges made against the Land Court are not justified. I am afraid the position of the Land Court possibly may be weakened by Debates in this House carried on on wrong lines. I wish hon. Members opposite criticising the Land Court for not giving its decision in detail might apply the same principle to arbitrators, who give such high awards in various cases.

I wish to call attention to the amount of money we are asked to vote in these Estimates. There is no doubt that we were all filled with righteousness in this House, and that we were doing immense good to the small tenants in Scotland. We were urged to believe that this Act meant the opening up of a new state of matters. I do not profess to know the details of the administration of this Court, but I wish to ask the attention of the Committee to the amount of money we are asked to vote. We are asked to vote £10,000, and, in addition to that, several other expenses; there is, for instance, £7,575, which this Land Court involves, making a total sum of something like £17,500. I wish to draw a lesson from this Vote for new legislation with regard to land, which we were promised was to bring such copious benefits to the small holders. I turn to the money value of the Land Court. I find that they have established small holders in several counties, in the aggregate somewhat considerable, but I take them in the prosaic order of their money value, and I find on page 31 of the Report they amount in annual value to £3,800, and I turn to the great benefits which were to flow so copiously to the small tenants of Scotland from this Land Court in the way of reductions of rent that have been wrung out of the hard pressed tenancy by grinding, exorbitant and tyrannical landlords. I am not a tenant and I am not a landlord, and I speak with absolute impartiality. What are the reductions affected by the Land Court in Scotland. Last year they amounted to a little over £1,100, and the total, therefore, is £5,300. Add to that the value of the new holdings and you get about £10,000, and at what cost to the nation and to the taxpayers among whom those small tenants are? At a cost of exactly £34,000.

If I had been a small tenant in Scotland I am sure I would prefer my share of the £34,000 rather than a share of the £10,000 which is the total value of the reductions produced by this Land Court together with the value of the small holdings that they have created. I would much rather have my share of a sum which is three times greater than the amount of the reductions and the cost of the new small holdings created. Is it not possible that for this we may learn a rather sarcastic lesson as to the value of this much vaunted legislation? As an impartial person who is neither a landlord nor a tenant, but representative of the taxpayers of this country, I as one of these taxpayers would rather have my share of the £34,000 to which I have contributed, which would mean a much more generous distribution for the small holders of Scotland than the £10,000 that has been the result of an expenditure of £34,000, because of this precious land reform. It is in that sense, and as a Member of this Committee voting the money of the taxpayers, that I protest that nothing like an adequate return is given, and it is on those grounds that I venture to make my criticism.

I venture to think that in Scotland there are many who do not share the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The money expended in connection with the working of the Land Court has undoubtedly led to great results in Scotland, and we look for still greater results in the time to come, because the Court at the present moment is unable through congestion to accomplish the work that lies upon it. I am glad to find that the attitude of hon. Members opposite to-day is somewhat changed as shown by their criticism of the Land Court. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs was actually prepared to-day to commend the methods of the Land Courts.

I said they had improved.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Baronet says that the methods have improved. I should like to reply in a word to the two or three matters of criticism which he put forward, and on which I submit he had no great strength of argument behind him. In the first place, he referred to the fact that the Land Court had referred in their Report to cases submitted to the Court of Session and the success attending them. Surely that is one answer to the argument he put forward that the Land Court should give information as to the way they act in the cases decided, and the points of law raised. I do not see why he should complain that that appears in the Report.

I am not complaining.

Then he referred to the fact that two out of eight cases have been reversed, and referred to that as severe falls for the Land Court. I would like to remind him that to have only two out of eight cases reversed is an extremely good record for any Court, and compares very favourably with the record of the Court of Session in that respect. If you take the judicial statistics for 1912, you will find that out of nine appeals from the Court of Session, four were reversed and five were affirmed by the House of Lords.

It is not on a case stated on which an appeal is taken, but where the merits were gone into.

The point I venture to make, and which is a fair one, is that any Court subject to review as the Court of Session is subject to review by the House of Lords, may have its decisions overturned, and that the average of decisions reversed is much higher in the case of the Court of Session than in the case of the Land Court. The hon. Baronet made a great point with regard to the failure of the Land Court to give the principles upon which they proceeded in reducing the amount of the rents. I venture to say I never heard a more absurd contention than to suggest that the Land Court, which is carrying out principles which are clearly laid down for it on the face of the Statute, should embody these in its Report. It is the very last thing one would expect to find in the Report of the Land Court, for the simple reason that these principles are well established and laid down within the Statute itself. The hon. Baronet will remember the conditions under which both a fair and equitable rent was to be fixed. In the case of an equitable rent the Land Court is directed to act,

"so far as practicable, upon their own knowledge and experience."

I am sure the hon. Baronet will admit that the members of the Land Court are men of knowledge and experience in agricultural affairs. He is aware that they are men who have knowledge and experience of farming and factoring, and who are chosen for that purpose. They are also

"directed to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, including the rent at which the holding has been let, the proposed conditions of the renewed tenancy, the improvements made by the landlord and tenant respectively, and the then condition and value of such improvements; and shall fix as the rent to be paid by the tenant the rent which, in their opinion, would be an equitable rent for the holding between the landlord and the tenant as a willing lessor and a willing lessee."

That is the principle and the only principle upon which the Land Court are to proceed in fixing these rents. It can hardly be suggested that there is much difference in the case of the fair rents fixed under the Crofters' Holdings Act, because there, again, after hearing the parties the Court have to consider all the circumstances of the case; and take into account any permanent or unexhausted improvements executed or paid for by the landholder or his predecessors, and then determine the fair rent and pronounce the order. Does the hon. Baronet suggest that the Land Court should put on paper all the circumstances and the various considerations which enter into the fixing of a particular rent? Surely it is absurd to suggest that there is any underlying principle beyond the one stated in the Act which could apply or that it would be possible to set forth all the circumstances of each case which have to be considered in turn!

I was particular to state that they could not go into the details. I said that I wanted to know the general principle upon which they were reducing rents.