forests in Ross and Cromarty have been increased in the aggregate by 96,000 acres between the years 1883 and 1898; and, seeing that some of this land which is now reserved for deer formerly sup ported a crofter population, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation with a view to prevent proprietors from extending deer forest areas in such a manner as to include land which is suitable for cultivation. THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.) The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question which is substantially identical with this the other day, and I have really nothing to add to the answer I then gave. MR. WEIR: But the right hon. Gentleman asked me to give him some facts. I have done so. Am I to understand that in future he will ignore facts? Pro-Boers as Magistrates. MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has just deprived a chairman of a district board, who was a magistrate on account of being elected to that position, of the commission of the peace because he publicly congratulated the Boers on the success of their arms in South Africa, the Lord Chancellor hold ing that this conduct was inconsistent with the retention of his commission; and whether he proposes to take any action with reference to other persons holding public positions and publicly acting in a similar manner, especially those whose positions have involved their taking the oath of allegiance. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my hon. friend is aware, action in this matter does not rest with me. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I have no change of policy to announce to the hon. Gentleman. MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to put the Board of Trade Vote down for an early day? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not for me to say, but I doubt whether this question could be raised on that Estimate. Business of the House. MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in proposing to sus pend the Twelve o'clock Rule tonight, he intends to provide that the subject. its completion, shall not be interrupted under discussion, which is approaching by the Twelve o'clock Rule, or whether he intends at this period of the session to invite the House to what would be practically, or approaching to, an allnight sitting. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that the two alternatives which the right hon. Gentleman suggests are the only alternatives. My view is that we really ought to finish this block of Rules by Thursday, and I cannot think that any hon. Gentleman who has followed the course of these debates attentively will think I am making any excessive demands on the House when I lay down that proposition. I hope we shall make very substantial progress towards that end tonight, and I trust there will be no necess ty for an all-night sitting. *MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford): I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will tell the House what order is to be observed after the Rule now under discussion is disposed of. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the second Order of the day; or, if not, in what order does he propose to take the other Rules? I want further to ask, supposing his forecast to be realised— which seems to me to be almost impossible, or extremely unlikely what business it is proposed to take on Friday, which will be a private Members' night. 173 MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It really is (29 APRIL 1902} Scottish Private MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Really, the right hon. Gentleman's Question is a very extraordinary one, for more than one reason. In the first place, I told the House yesterday the order in which I propose to take the Rules, and, in addition, the Speaker also gave an explanation of the Order Paper in the clearest manner. I have not at all departed from the statement I then made. My right hon. friend has expressed his view as to the extreme improbability that this block of Rules will be got through in two nights, I am sure that if my right hon. friend will second the Government in their efforts, there will not be the smallest As to the morn rather forecast that the important Bill CREMATION BILL [LORDS]. Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with Amend nents. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 167.] Bill, as amended (in the Standing Comdifficulty in attaining that object.mittee), to be considered upon Wednesday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill [Opposition laughter.] business on Friday, if my hopes are 179.] fulfilled, it is true that under those circumstances Friday will be a ing sitting and a private Members' day, and private Members will have two Wednesdays in one week-an unusual There is and exceptional privilege. There is private Members' business down for Friday, and I presume, if it is not set aside, it will be taken.. * MR. CHAPLIN: May I be allowed to say, in respect of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, that it may have been due to defective hearing on my part, but I certainly was unable yesterday to catch the order in which this block of Rules was to be taken, and the papers do not give it in any of the reports which I have carefully examined this morning. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I read it out twice. * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with regard to the shifting of Tuesdays' Motions to Wednesdays, and Wednesdays' Bills to Fridays? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there will have to be a Resolution upon the subject, and, although I will not pledge myself, I will endeavour to take it on Thursday, as it is really part of the policy of the block of Rules. MR. BRYCE: Will the business that stands for May 2nd, beginning "Ice Cream Shops (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading," be the business for Friday? STANDING ORDERS. Resolutions reported from the Committee. 1. "That in the case of the Imperial Institute Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; that the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill." 2. "That in the case of the London and North Western Railway Bill, Petition First Resolution agreed to. a MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL [LORDS]. Read the first time; to be read second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 178.] SCOTTISH PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (LOCAL INQUIRIES). [MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.] Mr. PIRIE, Member for Aberdeen (North Division), rose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the act of the Secretary for Scotland in interfering with the action of the Commissioners holding an inquiry under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, in the case of the Aberdeen Tramways Provisional Order, by taking upon himself the appointment of the place of meeting, which by the statute is in the discretion of the said Commissioners only"; but the pleasure of unintentionally, conveyed a completely the House not having been signified, Mr. false idea of what had actually taken SPEAKER called on those Members who place. The right hon. Gentleman had supported the Motion to rise in their said that the Order in question was one places, and not less than forty Members of a group remitted for inquiry to the having accordingly risen, Commissioners, embracing schemes for the North-East and South-West of Scotland, that Edinburgh was selected as the most convenient and central place, with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Commissioners, and, he held, with the approval of the great majority of the parties interested. These three statements, he was afraid, did not tally with * (4.15.) MR. PIRIE (who, in consequence of loud cries of "Divide," was almost inaudible) said there was something far more important in this question than appeared on the face of the Motion. It concerned a great principle approved by the House in connection with the devolution of its work [Cries of "Divide ! ”] * MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has obtained, by the process open to him under Standing Orders, the right of addressing the House, and I trust hon. Members will accord him a hearing. * MR. PIRIE said he could assure the House that it was far from his wish to waste its time, but a great principle was at stake, which concerned the right of the people of Scotland to manage their own affairs and exercise the whole power given to Scotland by the House two years ago. He would not interfere on a local question were a great principle not at stake, and he would be as brief as he could. But there was a great principle at stake on this question, in regard to which the mere example of Aberdeen was but a way of bringing on a discussion so as to avoid the creating of a precedent. The matter in brief was this: Two years ago, by an Act passed by the House, power was given to obtain Provisional Orders for private Bills in Scotland by Commissioners who were appointed to visit various localities in order to settle on the spot whether parties applying for Provisional Orders should obtain them or not. But this year a new practice into operation. It had come before the House in the first instance last Thursday owing to a Question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, who asked whether the Commissioners in the present instance were conducting their inquiries locally or in Edinburgh. He was sure the Lord Advocate would acquit him of in any way accusing him of mala files in the answer to that Question, but the statement he made, however had for the first time come any the facts as he understood them. It was completely at variance with the spirit of the Act that several schemes should be included in one large group, and that schemes actually from the two most opposite parts of Scotland should be settled at Edinburgh. The object of the Act was to obviate a number of witnesses having to travel, and to enable the Commissioners, from local knowledge acquired on the spot, to settle more expeditiously and with greater economy the point at issue before them. The Lord Advocate himself in 1898, in introducing the Act, spoke of one of its objects as being to prevent the continuance of, as he called it, smaller interests being bludgeoned by great Corporations. This act of the present Secretary for Scotland, in settling that this Inquiry should take place at Edinburgh, placed the smaller interests in exactly the unfavourable position which the object of the Act was to prevent. Today they had another story. They were told that neither the supporters nor the opponents of the measure were consulted in the selection of the place. So far as his knowledge went, the statement of the on Thursday was Lord Advocate inaccurate. He said also that this had the concurrence of the Chairman of the Commissioners. The Chairman had been interviewed, and he completely denied ever having been consulted orhaving concurred in any way with the decision of the Secretary of State. Therefore, they had what amounted to a gross illegality at the present moment going on. They had also a grave injustice to the localities concerned. Something like seventy-two witnesses had been brought up from Buckie and its neighbourhood to waste about a fortnight of their time at * MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I should not have allowed this Motion to be introduced if I had thought it was to be argued on the merits of the question whether a particular case ought to have been tried in Edinburgh or Aberdeen. It was only admitted as a matter of urgent public importance on the ground that the Secretary for Scotland was alleged to be introducing a new practice for the first time, contrary to the tenour of the Statute. MR. CALDWELL apologised for having gone into that matter. But he wished to make it clear that the selection of the Edinburgh. He regretted that the hon. | could surely have held a preliminary Member for Banffshire was not in his place, meeting in London to fix the place of or he would be supporting him. As far the Inquiry. Local inquiry was the as the Aberdeen tramway scheme was basis of the Act of Parliamentconcerned, some leading citizens had been obliged to waste their time ten days or a fortnight in Edinburgh for exactly the same purpose; whereas four Commissioners could have gone down to Aberdeen and held an Inquiry there, much more expeditiously and much more economically. He felt quite certain that what had taken place would turn out to have been an entire mistake, but it was more for an opportunity of giving the Lord Advocate a chance of rectifying his error, and as a protest which he thought it was very important to make at once, in order to prevent any repetition of the occurrence, that he took this step. It might be said, of course, that the increased fees to counsel for going over to Aberdeen or Buckie would in some way have been saved by holding the Inquiry at a central place such as Edinburgh. But any such argument as that was of no account in view of the enormously increased expense incurred by the witnesses being obliged to travel up to the central position. Then again, the amount of evidence which would have been required, had the Conmissioners been on the spot, as regarded the Buckie harbour, or had they been required to visit the actual ground of the Aberdeen tramway, would have been infinitely less than under the present circumstances. He trusted they would have an explanation of the circumstances attending this question, and avoid a repetition of the matter. place of Inquiry was left by the Act solely to the Commissioners, and the Secretary for Scotland had no right or power to take it into his hands. There had been an unwarrantable interference with the intentions of Parliament in the matter, and he hoped that in future the practice would be in conformity with the Act, and that the intentions of the Legislature would not again be frustrated in this manner. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."(Mr. Pirie.) THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I do not complain of the tone in which this MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid) matter has been raised, though I think seconded the Motion. He was sure the Lord Advocate would be the last to deny that this was a most important question. The whole object of remitting Bills to Scotland to be considered was to have the Inquiry held in the locality affected, and Parliament definitely decided that the Commissioners alone should fix the place of Inquiry. The Lord Advocate had told them that the Secretary for Scotland felt it was necessary to issue some preliminary notice as to the place of Inquiry, and that he had therefore taken it upon himself to fix, along with the Chairman of the Commissioners, the place where the Inquiry was to be held. The Commissioners VOL. CVII. [FOURTH SERIES.] the hon. Member might have found a day more convenient for it. I am rather in a difficulty in speaking about the interview with the Chairman which has been referred to. The reporter's idea of what Lord Clifford's views are, may not be precisely the same as his Lordship's, and I do not exactly know how to treat the interview. It is quite impossible for his Lordship either to have denied or affirmed its accuracy, because it was only published in the Aberdeen Journal yesterday, and as Lord Clifford is at this moment sitting in Edinburgh, it is quite obvious that he has not had time to take public notice of the matter at all. I can assure the hon. Member that the last G thing in the world that the Secretary for Tramways. they all wished to have them tried at Edinburgh with the exception of the Aberdeen Tramways. Undoubtedly the information of the Scotch Office was that the promoters of the Buckie Bill wished the case tried in Edinburgh, a letter to that effect having been received from the permanent counsel to the Private Bill Commissioners. The Secretary for Scotland discussed the matter with the Chairman, and said that on the whole he thought Edinburgh would be the most convenient place. In that view the Chairman acquiesced. That was the 21st of March, and either on that day or the next the Chairman went abroad, and he did not come back till four days before the Inquiry opened, so that it was impossible to get a meeting of the Commissioners. During that time, no doubt, an intimation was made on behalf of the Aberdeen Tramways people that they would sooner have the case heard in Aberdeen. But the Secretary for Scotland was put in a difficulty. He could only do the best he could without consulting the Commissioners. He said the matter had been mentioned to the Chairman, and the hearing had been fixed for Edinburgh, and he could not hold out any particular hope that that determination would be changed. More than that he did not and could not say. Then came the Easter recess. Lord Clifford came back on 18th April and called at the Scotch Office, and the to open on the 22nd. Inquiry was He was told when he called that this the representation had been made, and there the matter ended. Accordingly the Inquiry was opened at Edinburgh. The Buckie case began on the 22nd of April, and lasted until the 28th. Nothing about the Buckie case, because that was more, of course, could have been done the first Order on the Paper. But I should like to point out that if the Aberdeen Tramway people had still kept to their views that it was expedient that the Commissioners should shift to Aberdeen, there was no reason whatever why they should not have made application to the Commissioners and asked them to go to Aberdeen, and there was certainly no reason at all why the request should not be acceded to. If this system is to be worked at all we must make provisional arrangements, so to speak, at the Scotch Office. If we communicate those to the Commissioners-although it is perfectly |