Commons Sitting of 7 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, That he had received the following letter from the Secretary of State, which he read to the House as follows:—
"Foreign Office,
"July 5th, 1905.
"SIR,
"I have the honour to transmit herewith a translation of a note which has been addressed to me by the Spanish Ambassador at this Court, in which His Excellency informs me that at the sitting of the 16th instant the Senate of the Kingdom of Spain unanimously voted a Resolution giving most hearty thanks to the British nation for the sentiments of sympathy and sincere enthusiasm manifested on the occasion of the visit to this country of His Majesty the King of Spain.
"It will be observed that His Excellency desires that this Message may be communicated to the Houses of Parliament.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
"LANSDOWNE.
"The Right Honourable"
"The Speaker of the
"House of Commons."

Translation.
"Spanish Embassy,"
"London,
"June 23rd, 1905.
"MY LORD,
"I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that, at the sitting of the 16th instant, the Senate of the Kingdom unanimously voted a Resolution giving most hearty thanks to the British nation for the sentiments of sympathy and sincere enthusiasm which they showed towards His Majesty the King, my august Sovereign, during his stay in this country; I have pleasure in bringing this to Your Excellency's knowledge and venture to ask you to be good enough to communicate this testimony to the Parliamentary Representatives of the British Nation.
"I avail, etc.,
(Signed) L. POLO DE BERNABE.
"The Marquess of Lansdowne, K.G., Etc., etc., etc."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Corbett Estate Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Donovan's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Hastings Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Liverpool, etc.) Bill [Lords]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Inverness Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill; London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) Bill; Port Glasgow Improvement Provisional Order Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill (by Order). Read the third time, and passed.
  Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to he upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Great Central Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Copy presented, of Circular Letter addressed to General Officers Commanding-in-Chief relative to the Volunteer Force [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (BUILDING REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of the Building Regulations, being principles to be observed in planning and fitting up new buildings for Public Elementary Schools, together with Rules as to construction and certain requirements as to plans [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (INLAND POST).
  Copy presented, of the Inland Post Amendment (No. 2) Warrant, 1905, dated 26th June, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903 (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Regulations made by the Lord-Lieutenant in pursuance of the provisions of Section 23 (8) of The Irish Land Act, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th April; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230]
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS (GENERAL REPORT).
  Copy presented, of General Report to the Board of Trade upon the Accidents that have occurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3433 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 450 (Wei-hai-Wei, Annual Report for 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Death of Fitzpatrick in Cootehill Infirmary—Refusal of Local Doctor to Administer Ether.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in reference to the deaths in the Cootehill Infirmary, the Local Government Board asked for a personal explanation from the local doctor for his refusal to administer ether in the case of Fitzpatrick, who died after operation; if not, whether the Board will now ask for a personal answer; whether the medical officer made any report of Fitzpatrick's death to the Local Government Board or to the guardians; if so, what has been alleged as the cause of death; and whether the local police were apprised of the death of Fitzpatrick or of any of the four deaths of the previous January; if not, whether any other opportunity was afforded for making any complaint.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have already informed the hon. Member that the local doctor did not refuse to administer ether, but asked to be excused as he was not in good health. The doctor, however, would have been quite at liberty to refuse his professional services, and the Board would have had no right to ask him for an explanation, and have not done so. The medical officer made no special report of Fitzpatrick's death. The local police were not apprised of the deaths referred to. The relatives of the deceased could have complained to the Board if they had seen fit to do so.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the length of time spent by the inspector of the Local Government Board in his minute investigation of the cause of deaths in the Cootehill Infirmary; whether it was only the medical officer who performed the operations whom he consulted; and whether, considering the number of deaths from operations in the Cootehill Workhouse, the Local Government Board will order
  1472
  an inquiry in the case of every such death.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board have no record of the actual time occupied by their inspector in making his investigation, but the exhaustive report furnished by him indicates that he interrogated the nurses and workhouse officials. In the absence of any complaints of neglect or incompetency, supported by prima facie evidence, the Board do not order inquiries to be held in the case of deaths following operations.

  By-laws in Rural Districts Return.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Return, ordered on the 17th April last, in regard to by-laws in rural districts, will be printed and circulated.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) In preparing the Return the Local Government Board have found it necessary to communicate with the several rural district councils, and replies in all cases have not as yet been received. I cannot at present fix a time for the issue of the Return.

  Government Printing Contracts.
  MR. CROMBIE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office affords the opportunity of offering for the requirements of Government printing to printers in Aberdeen; and, if not, whether he will do so in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I understand that facilities such as are desired by the hon. Member have been given in the past, and will continue to be so given.

  Army Canteens—Tenant System.
  MR. BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the canteens of the Royal naval barracks are now let on what is

  1473
  called the tenant system, and that supplies are no longer required from local tradesmen; whether he is aware that the Winchester authorities, having tried this tenant system, are appealing to the War Office to revert to the supply of the canteens by local tradesmen; and whether he will take steps to secure to local tradesmen an opportunity of participating in the contracts for the Navy canteens.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Canteens in naval barracks are conducted either under the service or the tenant system, at the discretion of the commanding officer. The details of management and of purchase of stores are matters in which the Admiralty does not interfere.

  Cape Colony and Natal's Contributions to the British Navy.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Sir Gordon Sprigg's offer in 1897, on behalf of Cape Colony, to present to His Majesty's Navy the cost of a first-class battleship, was later commuted in the form of an annual payment representing the interest on such proposed outlay; and, if so, for what amount, and where does it appear in the Estimates; and whether, in addition to the provision of a battleship, the Cape, under The Navy Contribution Act, 1898, contributes a sum of £30,000 a year towards the annual expenditure of the Imperial Government in connection with His Majesty's naval services; and whether Natal continues her gift of 12,000 tons of coal annually for the use of His Majesty's ships, as noted in the Estimates of 1901–2.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The original proposal to present to His Majesty's Navy the cost of a battleship did not meet with unanimous approval in the colony, and was withdrawn. No payment representing the interest on the proposed outlay was made. Under the Cape Navy Contribution Act, 1898, however, the colony contributed £30,000 per annum towards the expenditure in connection with His Majesty's naval service, which sum, by
  1474
  The Navy Contribution Increase Act, 1902, was raised to £50,000. The supply free of charge by Natal of 12,000 tons of coal has been discontinued; a cash contribution of £35,000 per annum now being made under The Navy Contribution Act, 1903. Both contributions are shown at pages 8 and 9 of the Navy Estimates for the current year.

  Names on Carts in the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state under what statute proceedings can be taken against the owner of a cart in Ireland who affixes his name in Irish to the cart.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The statute is 14 and 15 Vic., cap. 92, section 12 (1). The offence is not for having the name in Irish on the cart, but for using the vehicle without having the owner's name and address legibly painted thereon. This has been interpreted by the High Court to mean that the name and address must be in English characters.

  Churches (Scotland) Bill—Government Amendments.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: To ask the Lord-Advocate if, before the adjourned debate on the Second Reading of the Churches (Scotland) Bill, he will, by some method, enable hon. Members to see in print the precise alterations in the Bill proposed by Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I regret I will not be able to announce the Amendments proposed by the Government before the adjourned debate on the Second Reading.

  Yield of Direct and Indirect Taxation.
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the yield for the year 1904–5 of each direct and indirect tax separately, in a form similar to his reply of 27th April, 1904,† but distinguishing the amounts devoted in each case to
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxiii., 1289.

  1475
  Imperial purposes and Local Taxation Account.

  Net Receipts in 1904–5 from Direct and Indirect Taxes. (Excluding the Proceeds of the Coal Duty.)

  Indirect Taxes.

  Direct Taxes.

  For Imperial purposes.

  For Local Taxation Accounts.

  For Imperial purposes.

  For Local Taxation Accounts.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Customs—

  Excise—

  Coffee etc.

  490,000

  —

  Licences, etc.

  253,000

  4,074,000

  Dried fruits

  442,000

  —

  Railway Duty

  355,000

  —

  Spirits

  3,822,000

  174,000

  Estate Duty

  13,010,000

  4,248,000

  Sugar

  6,106,000

  —

  Stamps

  7,804,000

  —

  Tea

  8,272,000

  —

  Land Tax

  768,000

  —

  Tobacco

  13,185,000

  —

  Inhabited House Duty

  2,014,000

  —

  Wine

  1,185,000

  —

  Income-Tax

  31,264,000

  —

  Other Customs

  66,000

  1,000

  Excise—

  Beer

  12,679,000

  423,000

  Spirits

  17,307,000

  829,000

  Glucose, etc

  104,000

  —

  63,658,000

  1,427,000

  55,468,000

  8,322,000

  £65,085,000

  £63,790,000

  Results of Work of Seistan Commission.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India, the work of the Seistan Commission having terminated on the return to Quetta a month ago of the Chief Commissioner, Colonel MacMahon, with his surveyors and escorts, can a communication be made, in either House, before closing the session,
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  describing the objects of this Mission and its results so far obtained, together with a statement of sums expended up to date, with estimate of total and prospective annual cost of arrangements made pursuant to the Mission's explorations in those desert regions, through which a railway has been pushed beyond Nushki; and also list of casualties from drought and

  1477
  disease during making of the railway and since despatch of the Mission two years ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The object of the Mission to Seistan was the settlement, in accordance with the 6th Article of the Treaty with Persia of 1857, of disputes which had arisen between the Persians and Afghans as to their respective rights to the waters of the Helmund River. Colonel MacMahon's award has been delivered to the two Governments concerned, but it would be undesirable to make any detailed statement on the subject till the award has been formally accepted by the two Governments concerned. The question of the Perso-Baluch boundary, to which my predecessor referred in his reply to the hon. Member on the 3rd March, 1903† has been settled with the Persian Government without demarcation. Up to the end of 1904–5 the expenditure on the Mission had amounted to about twenty-six lakhs, and about seven lakhs (Rs. 6,88,000) were provided in the Budget of the current year for the same purpose. I may add that the extension of the railway from Quetta to Nushki, beyond which place no extension is either under construction or in contemplation, had no connection with the objects of the Mission. The estimated cost of the line is about seventy lakhs. I have no information as to the number of deaths from drought or disease, either amongst those connected with the Mission or amongst the labourers employed upon the railway.

  Promotion of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of teachers, exclusive of infant school teachers, in the group of districts under Mr. Murphy, Armagh, as senior inspector; what number of these teachers has he recommended for promotion to second of first, and to first of first grade respectively for the past three years; how many teachers in the same group of districts were recommended by their inspector for admission to examination
  † See (4) Debates, cxviii. 1232.
  1478
  for these grades preceding the introdution of the new system, on account of their having conducted the schools in a satisfactory or highly efficient manner.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of national teachers in the district under Mr. O'Connell, Belfast, excluding teachers of infant schools; how many has he recommended for promotion to second of first and first of first grade respectively during the past three years; and how many have been promoted; and if he will advise the National Board to see that more uniformity is established between the proportion of teachers recommended for promotion by inspectors of the different districts and also between recommendations under the new system and the old.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It does not appear to the Commissioners that any useful public purpose would be served by giving this information, and they are unable, therefore, to give it. If, however, my hon. friend will communicate to me the particulars of any specific case I shall be glad to make further inquiry.

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
MR. MOUNT, in moving a new clause in substitution for Clause 2 in the Bill, said that in Committee it was urged that as certain stringent liabilities were being imposed upon railway companies it was only fair that the companies should be empowered to take precautions to protect themselves against the risk of fire arising from sparks emitted from their engines. The promoters were willing to accede to that request provided the precautions taken did not unduly trench on the rights of others. Under the Bill a railway company on payment of compensation had a right to enter a plantation or wood and adopt such precautions as they thought fit to prevent injury by fire to such plantation, and it was further set

1479
out that in the exercise of that power the company might cut down trees or shrubs without obtaining the consent of the owners. That was a stringent provision, and there were many ways in which the exercise of the right might cause serious damage. In many places plantations had been planted for the purpose of shutting out the view of a railway line, and the cutting down of trees without the consent of the owner might cause damage which the payment of money would not compensate.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES,intimated his willingness to accept the Amendment.
MR. MOUNTsaid in that case he need not further labour the point, but simply move.
A clause. (Powers for the extinction and prevention of fire).
"(1) A railway company may enter on any land and do all things reasonably necessary for the purpose of extinguishing, or arresting the spread of, any fire caused by sparks or cinders emitted from any locomotive engine.
"(2) A railway company may, for the purpose of preventing or diminishing the risk of fire in a plantation, wood, or orchard through sparks or cinders emitted from any locomotive engine, enter upon any part of the plantation, wood, or orchard, or on any land adjoining thereto, and cut down and clear away any undergrowth, and take any other precautions reasonably necessary for the purpose; but they shall not, without the consent of the owner of the plantation, wood, or orchard, cut down or injure any trees, bushes, or shrubs.
"(3) A railway company exercising powers under this section shall pay full compensation to any person injuriously affected by the exercise of those powers, including compensation in respect of loss of amenity, and any compensation so payable shall, in case of difference, be determined in England and Ireland by two justices in manner provided by Section 24 of The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and in Scotland by the sheriff in manner provided by Section 22 of The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845."—(Mr. Mount.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time.
SIR MARK STEWART, in moving to insert "or moorland" in line 1, said he had known cases in
1480
which eighty or 100 acres of grass had been destroyed by fire before the persons told off to put down such outbreaks could appear on the scene. It was a question of the destruction not only of heather and grass, but also of fences. Moreover, when fire got into peat mosses it often remained there for weeks, and could only be extinguished by heavy rains. He begged to move.
MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not know what the legal aspect of the matter might be, but he would have thought that "land" included "moorland." As, however, there might be a legal distinction, he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"In line 1, after the word 'land' to insert the word 'or moorland.'"—(Sir Mark Stewart.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BRIGGthought that the Amendment was altogether unnecessary. There might be different kinds of land to which the technical term of "moorland" would not apply, with the result that the Amendment would tend to limit the operation of the clause.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought that to name any particular kind of land would limit rather than extend the operation of the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR JAMES RANKIN SIR JAMES RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster) moved to amend the new clause so as to require the railway company to obtain the consent of the owner before entering any plantation, wood, or orchard for the purpose of taking precautions against the risk of fire. His objections had been largely met by the new clause, but he desired that the consent of the owner should be necessary before the company entered on the land at all. Under the clause there was no limitation as to the land they might enter, nor was there any definition of "undergrowth" which they

1481
might cut down without consent, whereas before they cut down bushes the consent of the owner was necessary. It was difficult sometimes to tell the difference between bushes and undergrowth, and great hardship might be inflicted unless the words he proposed were inserted. Without some such proviso the remedy would really be worse than the disease. If the Amendment were agreed to he would propose to leave out all words after "purpose," as he thought the clause would then cover everthing that was required. He did not wish to prevent the passage of the Bill, as he regarded it as a useful measure, but he thought the amenities of land adjoining the plantations should be protected.
SIR JOHN DORINGTONseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"In line 7, after the word 'engine' to insert the words 'after having obtained the consent of the owner of the plantation, wood, or orchard.'"—(Sir James Rankin.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONthought that if the remedy were worse than the disease the necessary antidote would be that compensation should not be payable unless reasonable precautions against fire had been taken. If an owner had bramble bushes near a railway he was almost inviting a fire. He did not think any hindrances ought to be put in the way of the companies taking the necessary precautions. In fact, he rather welcomed the proposal, because the cost of the precautions, instead of falling on the owner as hitherto, would in future have to be borne by the companies. He did not think there would be any difficulty in arranging the necessary precautions with due regard to the amenities of property, and he considered the clause quite reasonable as it stood.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,pointed out that the insertion of the words would make the sub-section quite unnecessary. An Act of Parliament was
1482
unnecessary to enable anyone to enter upon land with the consent of the owner. It had already been provided that if a fire broke out the company might enter upon land for the purpose of extinguishing it, and it could not be said that that was an unreasonable provision. What was desired was a farther power for the company to enter upon land and take any reasonable precautions to prevent the outbreak of fire. The suggestion of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had come rather late in the day, and in view of the present position of the Bill the consideration of that suggestion could not with advantage be now entered upon. He appealed to his hon. friend not to press the Amendment.
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that he had had some experience in this matter and he should be delighted if the railway companies had that power.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not the point. The question the hon. and gallant Member is dealing with has been disposed of in the new sub-section. This Bill deals only with steps to be taken to prevent fires breaking out.
MR. MOUNThoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment.
SIR JAMES RANKINsaid that as his Amendment did not find favour with the Committee, and as he was anxious that the Bill should pass, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR JOSEPH LEESE SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington) moved an Amendment to insert after the word "enter" the words "thereon within twenty yards of the railway fence."
MR. SOAREShoped the promoters would accept this Amendment. Nearly all the alterations in Grand Committee seemed to be in favour of the railway companies, and it was a pity that when a private Bill was introduced, in order to get it through all kinds of interests should be placated and their Amendments

1483
agreed to simply in order to pass the Bill. It was very serious to give railway companies power to enter into covers and go any distance into them. He thought the House would be wise in accepting this Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"In line 7, to leave out from the word 'enter' to the word 'and,' in line 8, and insert the words 'thereon within twenty yards of the railway fence.'"—(Sir Joseph Leese.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. MOUNTsaid that it had been I shown that twenty yards was not satisfactory in every case. The railway companies were only being allowed to take such precautions as were absolutely necessary, and he trusted the hon. Member would not imperil the progress of the Bill by his present proposal.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he had known cases where every precaution had been taken for forty or fifty yards, and even then cinders had frequently dropped over that distance.
MR. LYELLsaid he should support his hon. friend in the lobby if he pressed his Amendment to a division. It had always been intended that one of the principal effects of this Bill should be to compel railway companies to adopt such inventions as were I available for the prevention of these sparks flying about. At the present time there was no inducement for railway companies to adopt these inventions. To give these companies leave to go any distance into plantations or other land to cut down bushes which they might consider were liable to catch fire, would be putting into their hands a power which would be extremely liable to abuse.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he was not one of those who regarded railway companies as people who were always ready to meet them very fairly, but in this particular instance he thought they had met them fairly. The principal complaint of the
1484
hon. Member for Barnstaple was that cover owners and shooting tenants would be affected. He wished to point out that this Bill was not brought in in the interests of cover owners or shooting tenants, but its object was to ensure that the crops of farmers should not be damaged and that if they were damaged by sparks from engines the farmers should receive compensation. The farmers were quite satisfied that their case had been fairly met by the railway companies.
MR. EDMUND FABERassured the House that railway companies were really desirous of finding something that would prevent sparks, but they could not do so without reducing the power to get up steam.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid this question had been thoroughly threshed out in Committee. The railway companies had no desire to damage plantations, for which damage they would have to pay. The object of the clause was to enable the companies to clear the ground ahead of a fire and thus arrest its progress; and to take precautions against the recurrence of a fire. The course of a fire might be more than twenty yards from the railway and if a limit was put in it would render the clause useless.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause added to the Bill.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after the word 'when' to insert the words 'after this Act comes into operation.'"
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 16, to leave out the word 'Act' and insert the word 'section.'"—(Mr. Mount).
Amendments agreed to.
MR. SOARES MR. SOARES moved an Amendment to Clause 1 to enable action for damages to be brought under it up to £500 instead of merely £100. He said all the alterations in the Bill seemed to have been

1485
made in favour of the railway companies. However, he did not see why they should be protected. The Bill was one to protect farmers, and why should the farmers' claim for damages under the Bill be limited to £100. Much more serious damage might be done to standing crops. He, himself, would like to see no restriction at all. He did not see why railway companies who had committed damage should not pay the whole amount; but, if some limitations were desired, he was willing that it should be £500. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 18, to leave out the word 'one,' and insert the word 'five'—(Mr. Soares)—instead therof."
Question proposed, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Bill."
MR. BRIGHTsaid he agreed with his hon. friend that the amount to which damages were to be limited was far too low. It seemed to him that if a railway company did damage at all it should be responsible for a higher amount. The higher the amount the companies had to pay the surer they would be to find out an early remedy for sparks. It was only a question, after all, for experiment, and the resources of science were not exhausted.
MR. GEORGE FABERsaid he did not think it was wise to penalise railway companies too much. When powers were originally given to railway companies it was very well known that the railways would be run by steam, and that the locomotives would emit sparks. In view of the difficulties which the companies had found in getting a remedy for sparks, he held that it would not be right to penalise them in the way proposed.
MR. MOUNTexpressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. This matter was threshed out by the Committee upstairs, and he thought the arrangement come to was a fairly reasonable one. He would point out that, apart from the protection given under this Bill, the farmer would still have
1486
the remedy which he had at present a common law. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the damage done to agricultural produce would be met by the £100 limit.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERagreed with his hon. friend that the railway companies had made rather a good bargain in regard to the limit of £100. But there was no mode of getting the Bill through this session if they were going to fight the railway companies on all points. The proposal in the Bill was a compromise, and, as had been pointed out, the limit stipulated would cover most of the cases of damages. In cases where a greater amount of damage was done the loser would not be prevented from pursuing the railway company under common law. In the interest of agriculturists they would do well to take the Bill as it stood, rather than wreck it, and possibly be left in the position of not getting another for years.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the limitation of £100 was not in itself unreasonable. The Bill left intact the remedy that at present existed at common law, but the person seeking redress in that way had to prove negligence. This Bill was specially introduced to provide another form of remedy. It was particularly hard on a person whose crops had been destroyed that he had to adduce evidence, it might be by experts, for the purpose of establishing negligence. That was peculiarly hard in the case of the smaller tenants. The Bill, as passed by the Grand Committee and amended by the House, relieved the small farmer from that hardship and enabled him to get redress from the railway company. He could not help feeling that the limit introduced in Grand Committee was in itself reasonable and in consonance with the purpose of the Bill. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to divide the House on the Amendment.
MR. SPEARsaid he felt a great interest in some protection being given to agriculturists; but, knowing the difficulty they had in Grand Committee to get the Bill through, he ventured to appeal to Members

1487
opposite to withdraw the Amendment. He considered it would be a great pity to risk the loss of the Bill because they did not get all they wanted. Agriculturists wished no injustice to be done to the railway companies; indeed, quite the reverse. The Bill was a matter of justice, and he hoped they would not risk it by the Amendment.
MR. LUKE WHITEsaid they were told by the Attorney-General that agriculturists might suffer more than £100 damages by sparks, but they would still be entitled to have recourse to the common law. It was, however, the very difficulties under the common law which had led to the introduction of the Bill. He felt quite sure that the limit of £100 was far too low. It might be in the interest of those in charge of the Bill that they should suggest some larger sum than £100, and, if they did so, there would be some general agreement.
MR. H. D. GREENEsaid that on this occasion he agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite. At the present time no man could succeed in an action against a railway company for damages caused by fire sparks unless he could bring it home that there was negligence in the management or construction of the engines, and great expense had to be incurred to prove that the engine was not so constructed as to prevent sparking. Coal was now so expensive that railway companies used more bad coal in their engines, and high speed required such a large amount of coal that he did not think there was any doubt in the mind of anybody in agricultural districts that bad coal was in no small part the cause of these fires. That being the state of the law, a one-clause Bill was brought in to compel companies to pay damages whether the loss, however great, was caused by negligence or not, and there was no serious opposition to it; however, since the Second Reading, they were asked to pass a clause limiting the amount of damages which the companies were to be liable to pay to £100. He should vote for the Amendment. The argument that they would get no Bill at
1488
all unless the proposals in that Bill were agreed to had no weight with him.
MR. BRIGGsuggested that a compromise might be made by making the limit £200. He thought that would meet all the circumstances of the case.
MR. SOARESagreed to the suggestion
MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that the Bill had still to go through the Third Reading stage. This was the last day available for the consideration of the Bill on Report, and he thought they should not discuss. Amendments at great length. It would be perfectly impossible to pass the Bill unless the Government gave facilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, to leave out Clause 2."
"In page 2, line 7, to leave out the words 'No action under this Act shall be,' and insert the words 'This Act shall not apply in the case of any action for damage by fire.'"—(Mr. Mount.)
Amendments agreed to.
SIR MARK STEWART SIR MARK STEWART moved an Amendment on Clause 3 for the purpose of extending from seven to fourteen days the period during which notice might be given to a railway company of a claim for damages. He could not think that the railway companies would really object to a fortnight's notice. In some cases farmers lived a long way from the farms and were dependent on shepherds and others for information.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 10, to leave out the word 'seven,' and insert the word 'fourteen'"—(Sir Mark Stewart),—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid this Bill was placing an onerous charge on the railway companies. The whole question whether there was an obligation resting on a railway company to pay would depend on the evidence as to whether the damage had been caused by a spark from an engine. The persons whose crops were damaged could easily give notice within seven days, and it would be easier in that case for the railway companies to trace whether or not they were liable. Fires of this kind not infrequently arose through fires lighted by tinkers, and unless railway companies had notice within a short period they would not be able to satisfy themselves whether they were liable.
MR. SOARESsaid the amount of the claim was limited to £100, and this was not a very onerous burden on the wealthy railway companies of the country. All the new terms of the Bill seemed to be on the side of the railway companies. He agreed that this was a very serious and important Amendment, because it had to be remembered that the people who would suffer were farmers, who were not accustomed to sending in claims for damages. They had to send in notice of their claim and also particulars of the damage within seven days, which was a very short period, seeing that they would have to assess the damage, probably having to engage a value to do it. He considered fuller time should be allowed.
MR. MOUNTexpressed the hope that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. The matter was discussed by the Grand Committee, and it was agreed that seven days should be the time.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that the Amendment was very important; and he thought that the Government should make some concession in the matter.
COLONEL PILKINTONsaid that it seemed to him the railway companies ought to concede something here. It seemed to him quite a monstrous suggestion on the part of the railway companies that a
1490
claim for damages should be sent in in writing within seven days, if the House would excuse him putting it in such strong language. He should have thought twenty-eight days would have been much more appropriate. It meant, if seven days notice was left in, that farmers might be too late. Surely the railway companies were not going to press that. Surely they did not want to evade just claims. Just claims might be too late, for farmers might not be able to get their full claims in writing made out within seven days. He was not going to suggest twenty-eight days, but he did think that for the sake of getting the Bill these just suggestions and claims ought to be met. This seemed to him to be most fair, and he trusted that the House would insist on fourteen days notice.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid it was only by compromise that the Bill could be got through. The promoters were prepared to accept; the Amendment if they were not asked for any more.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid he should be quite prepared to accept the proposal that seven days should be given for notice, and fourteen days for the preparation of the claim.
MR. LYELLsaid that no argument had been adduced in favour of the retention of the words "seven days," except that damage might be caused by tinkers, whom it would be difficult to trace. He protested against the hon. Member for South-West Manchester regarding this as a great concession, and that no further concession should be given.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsuggested that fourteen days should be given for furnishing the particulars of the damage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY SIR ROBERT FINLAY moved to insert in line 10, after "damage," the words and within fourteen days as regards particulars of the damage."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 10, after the word 'damage' to insert the words 'and within fourteen days as regards particulars of the damage.'"—(The Attorney-General.)
Amendment agreed to.
SIR MARK STEWART SIR MARK STEWART moved an Amendment to insert in line 15, after "land," the words "or moorland." It might be all right in a stone wall country; but in the Highlands the heather would burn like tinder.
SIR HUGH SHAW-STEWARTseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 15, after the word 'land,' to insert the words 'or moorland.'"—(Sir Mark Steward.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or moorland' be there inserted."
MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GOREsaid that what the Amendment really aimed at was the protection of grouse. The damage in that case might be very excessive; and he should certainly vote against the Amendment.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that under the terms of the Bill "moorland" was excluded.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid that his hon. friend who seconded the Amendment was not only politically, but personally, a neighbour; and he was quite sure his hon. friend would agree that there were many moors which ought to be more frequently burned. It would be a most difficult thing to trace the origin of a fire, and in the case of moorland it would be difficult to assess the damage that had been done, because fires on the moorlands usually took place in those parts which were most neglected. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 24, to leave out the words 'Compensation for Damage to Crops,' and insert the words 'Railway Fires.'"—(Mr. Mount.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 24, at end to insert the words 'This Act shall apply to agricultural land under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and to agricultural crops thereon.'"—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
(King's consent signified), Bill read the third time, and passed.

COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 17, after the words 'deputy check-weigher,' to insert the words 'as the case may be.'"
"In page 2, line 10, after the words 'check-weigher,' to insert the words, 'or deputy-check-weigher.'"
"In page 2, line 14, to leave out the word 'so.'"
"In page 2, line 14, after the word 'paid,' to insert the words 'as aforesaid.'"
"In page 2, line 16, at the beginning, to insert the words 'For the purposes of the principal Act and of this Act.'"
"In page 2, line 19, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'be deemed to.'"
"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'gotten,' to insert the words 'be deemed to.'"
"In page 2, line 29, after the word 'those,' to insert the words 'who are.'"
"In page 2, line 29, to leave out the words 'in respect of,' and insert the word 'from.'"
"In page 3, line 10, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'The Coal Mines Regulation Act (1887) Amendment Act, 1903, and.'"—(Mr. Compton Rickett.)
Amendments agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. COMPTON RICKETTsaid he should like to acknowledge the treatment the Bill had met

1493
with in the Committee from the coalowners, who had behaved most fairly. Under all the circumstances he thought it was right also to mention that they were indebted very much to the Under-Secretary to the Home Office for medition and assistance.
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid his hon. friend opposite had recognised the conciliatory spirit in which the coal-mine owners had received this Bill and had treated it in all its stages. They had had a great many conferences with the miners' representatives and with the hon. Member himself, and after all those conferences they withdrew the Amendments and allowed the Bill to go through all its stages without any friction or opposition. Now, what they pressed for was to attach to this Bill a clause which was really of the same nature as the check-weighing clause. He pressed for a clause to be put in with regard to the weighing of foreign matter. The hon. Gentleman and his friends pointed out to them that, although in some respects they would be ready to discuss such a thing as that, and although they admitted that it ought to be discussed, they considered that this was not the time and that it should be left for the future and for a larger Bill. He and his friends wished to do this now and they thought it was a good opportunity, because the Bill was not a long one and they thought the result was obtainable, but, when it was pointed out to them the great difficulties the miners had to contend with, they saw at once that there was great force in the position put to them, and they acquiesced and helped the miners with the passage of the Bill. Now what did the hon. Gentleman himself say, speaking at the Grand Committee. He said—
"Therefore, if this were a perfectly good case, still I would submit to the Committee that it is not the time, nor is this Bill the opportunity for pressing it. To put it into this Bill would most certainly wreck the Bill. This is a matter for discussion, and I am glad to say that the representatives of the men in meeting the coalowners have suggested that this question should come up at the Conciliation Board's meeting at once, and that it should be thoroughly threshed out, and that sooner or later it should form the subject of legislation in conjunction
1494
with the provisions of the Act of 1887, which will be looked at from more points than one."
The Under-Secretary for the Home Office also gave great attention to the Bill, and he thought if the hon. Gentleman said anything now he would probably say he would be glad to see something done on the lines he had stated. These were his words in the Grand Committee—
"Now, as regards this particular Amendment which deals with this difficulty, it has been one that has been long felt. It is overcome now, and I believe it is overcome by illegal methods. Both parties, men and employers, are more or less guilty, in these arrangements come to, of technical illegalities. Under those circumstances I must have great sympathy with any measure to make legal that which is not legal, but which is generally agreed upon by both employers and workmen. Now this point has been considered by the Home Department on more than one occasion. Mr. Asquith and Lord Ridley endeavoured to meet it. Neither of them succeeded in doing so."
Then his hon. friend n the further arguments of his speech went on to say—
"I think it is a very legitimate and proper one, but I have heard what the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill has said. He says that there has been a meeting between those who promote the Bill on the one side, and those who are not promoting it on the other side, and that they have met to consider this question with every desire to come to a solution; and he pledges himself, on behalf of the workers, not to let the subject die, not to say anything in the future in a hostile way, but to take it into their early and immediate consideration; and, if a Bill is introduced to deal with this question, that it will meet with no factious opposition from the employed. Under those circumstances, we may consider this is a genuine, and a reliable, and a bona fide offer of the working men, and if they go away from that they will lose a great deal of weight. I hope and believe that that is their intention, and I say to hon. Members not to press even a good thing if it is going to have a disastrous effect upon a humble and useful measure. The fate of this Bill entirely depends upon the good will of the House of Commons. If there is one side or the other hostile we know that its doom is sealed. It has many good, useful, and modest provisions, and I commend it to the Committee. Under those circumstances I would suggest, although I have no right to do so, to my hon. friends who have been most reasonable, to meet the thing in this respect—that they should not press the clause, which is beset with so many difficulties at the present time."
The result of all those appeals from the Home Office and from the hon. Members opposite was that they certainly fell in with their view. They felt it was only right to do so. They

1495
felt most thoroughly that the Bill as it at present stood did not go very far, but as far as it went it was a good, useful, and carefully-drawn Bill. Therefore, he had much pleasure on the Grand Committee in acquiescing in the desire expressed by the promoters of the Bill, and he was glad to-day to wish the Bill every success, and that it should pass its Third Reading.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he had listened with some surprise to the lengthy quotations read by the hon. Member opposite, and he wondered why they had been read. He thought there must be some ulterior motive in his reading them. Why did the hon. Member read those statements unless it was to put on record that the miners' representatives would, in cases of deductions for foreign matter, go in the direction of the proposals of the coalowners, upon which the men had strong opinions? It might be that in the future some large Bill would be brought in, as an improvement of the Mines Regulation Act, and that these statements read with such emphasis and clearness would then be brought before them as some pledge to force upon the miners' representatives some such clause. Speaking for himself, he knew of no inference or implied pledge given by the miner's representatives that they would go in any direction so far as deductions for foreign material were concerned, and he rose to safeguard himself from any such inference being drawn. He joined in thanking the coalowners for the conciliatory manner in which they had met the Bill, but if it had not been for the stubbornness of some coalowners it would never have been necessary at all. If they (the employers) had put into operation what they (the workmen) considered the legitimate powers given to them and the provisions provided for them under the principal Act of 1887, there would never have been any need to introduce this Bill or for any arrangement to be made, because, with the exception of one or two cases, in the whole of the United Kingdom the provisions of the principal Bill were carried out. He was aware of no case in Durham where the check-weighing system
1496
was in force where there was not a cabin and proper provisions for weighing.
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that this was a serious matter. The deliberations upstairs did not appear on record anywhere to-day. He had only read out what his hon. friend and the Under-Secretary of State had said. If the Bill had been before the Committee of the Whole House everything said would of course have been on record. He would only say to his hon. friend that the coal proprietors and the miners' representatives had really co-operated in this matter, and he trusted on some future occasion the miners' representatives would co-operate with the coalowners.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONexpressed his satisfaction that this Bill had reached its Third Reading. He had always desired to treat questions of this kind in a conciliatory spirit, and the sooner that state of things could be brought about which would insure that the interests of both sides would be safeguarded and that each side would be able to carry on their trade in a peaceful way the better. The check-weighing system was at the root of the administrative working of the mines so far as economy was concerned. The hon. Gentleman opposite had truly stated that the irregularities which this Bill was intended to meet in their opinion only applied to isolated cases. It had certainly been a surprise to him that it was necessary to insert many things which he had round in the Bill. He did not think that any colliery owner would take any credit for having acted in a conciliatory spirit. That was the desire of all who were engaged in colliery affairs. It was their desire to do everything they could to do away with anything that caused friction and inconvenience. He thought it was wiser not to attempt to widen the Bill in any way.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,referring to what had transpired in Committee said it was at the time admitted that the question was one deserving of consideration, but the time was not propitious for it. He

1497
believed meetings of hon. Members interested on both sides had been held And that it had been agreed on behalf of the coalowners that such a contentious clause ought not to be introduced, while Ion. Members who had introduced the Bill had stated on behalf of the men that if it were brought up on a subsequent occasion it should not be dealt with in a contentious or hostile spirit.
MR. COMPTON RICKETT: I do not wish to interrupt, but I said that the matter would be discussed in the first instance by the miners at the Conciliation Board. The subject would be treated in a fair and impartial manner.
MR. COCHRANEhoped that under the circumstances the House could agree to the Third Reading of the Bill.
Bill read the third time and passed.

DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL, on behalf of the hon. Member for West Donegal, moved the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 31, after the word 'or,' to insert the word 'knowingly.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.).
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
COLONEL NOLANobjected. He had, he said, intended to move an Amendment to Clause 11, which he understood had been put in solely at the instance of publicans. It would unfairly penalise sober people. It provided that a sober person who went into a public-house and offered a glass of beer to another man might be subject to fine and imprisonment. The Bill
1498
was no doubt aimed at drunken persons, but surely, in view of the difficulty or telling when a man was drunk, the clause should be more definite. He suggested it required the addition of the word "obviously" before the words "drunken person." The difficulty was to decide when a man was drunk. He had had to do that thousands of times, but different people held different views. One thought a man excited by a single glass of beer was drunk: another held that he must be totally incapable before he could be so described. No man would be safe under the Bill if he went into a public-house and offered to stand a drink. He was not in favour of the habit of standing drinks all round: but he had stood drinks in his time—no not at an Election—because that was dangerous and petitions might be in the air—but he did think the clause ought to have been more carefully constructed, and under the circumstances he should feel it his duty to vote against the Bill unless Clause 11 was amended.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the clause had been inserted at the request of the Dublin Publicans' Society for the protection of publicans, who complained that, while they were liable to punishment for serving a drunken man, it often occurred that the drink was called for by a perfectly sober man and given to, a drunken person, and it was not fair that they should be penalised in that case. He hoped the Bill would under the circumstances be read a third time.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITagreed that the wording of the clause was too drastic. In reply to the question raised by a previous speaker, there was no such provision in the English licensing law. While he was not prepared to oppose the Third Reading he did feel sorry that the hon. Member had lost his opportunity of moving his very proper Amendment.
COLONEL NOLANasked if he could move to re-commit the Bill in respect of Clause 11.
MR. SPEAKER: Such a Motion would be in order but the hon. and gallant Member could not make it as he has exhausted his right of speech.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,undertook to introduce the word "knowingly" in another place, so as to make it punishable for a man to knowingly give drink to a drunken person."
COLONEL NOLAN: I should prefer the words to a "manifestly drunken person."
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLfeared that that would lead to considerable difficulties of interpretation.
MR. JOSEPH DEVLINurged the hon. and gallant Member to accept the offer of the Government. He quite sympathised with him, and concurred that anything which was the outcome of an agreement between the trade and the temperance party should have been viewed with special suspicion by the Government.
MR. NOLANsaid it had been stated in the debate that the publicans of Ireland had been consulted with regard to the provisions of this Bill, and that they were in favour of it. He accepted that statement in good faith, and he, for one, should not attempt to challenge either the honesty or the intelligence of the publicans of Ireland. He knew that many of the publicans of Ireland were highly respectable and intelligent men and good citizens, but, with all due respect both to the publicans of Ireland, who appeared to have been consulted, and all the other people who had been and were still connected with the pressing forward of this measure, he ventured to say that this Bill was uncalled for, ill-considered, mischievous in its provisions, and offensive to every Irishman who had any regard for the fair fame of his country. The very title "Drunkenness (Ireland) Bill" was offensive. If there was one man in Ireland who indulged to excess in strong drink he should say that there was too much drunkenness in Ireland. Unfortunately there was more
1500
than one person who indulged in strong drink in Ireland, but he utterly denied that the number who indulged to excess in Ireland was any greater than in England, Scotland, or Wales. Therefore, he resented any special measure of this kind being brought forward to deal with drunkenness in Ireland which was not applicable to Great Britain as well. He was proud to say that there were at the present time healthy influences at work which were bringing about a very great change in the habits of the people of Ireland in regard to indulging in strong drink. Although those influences might not be of such a sweeping character, yet he believed that the steady growth of the temperance movement in Ireland, based upon moderation and religious suasion, would have a far more beneficial effect than any coercive measures of this character which might be passed by this House. He considered this Act, if passed, would be an addition to the long list of coercive Acts which had been applied to Ireland. This measure in its former stages appeared to have been smuggled through the House. It was not debated on the Second Reading, and it had been got through after midnight in a hole-and-corner way without the knowledge of the majority of the Members of the Irish Party in the House.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Second Reading was passed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Donegal on a Friday afternoon.
MR. NOLANsaid it got through Committee in the same way. Clause 13 would compel a husband to give evidence against his wife, and the wife to give evidence against her husband. To his mind such a proposal was an outrage upon family life and the social relations which existed in Ireland. So far as families in Ireland were concerned, the proposals in this Bill were an outrage on common sense. He moved, as an Amendment, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of Amendments to Clauses 11 and 13."
MR. JOHN WILSONseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'be,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of Clauses 11 and 13.'"—(Mr. Nolan.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. MOONEYsupported the Amendment. He said Clause 13 would compel a wife to give evidence
against her husband, and a husband to give evidence against his wife. He did not believe that there was a provis on of that kind in any English Act of a similar character. He thought his hon. friend was quite justified in moving the recommittal of this Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 251.)

AYES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn)

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

Allen, Charles P.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

O'Dowd, John

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

Baker, Joseph Allen

Hammond, John

Parrott, William

Balcarres, Lord

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hayter, Rt Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Philipps, John Wynford

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Helder, Augustus

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

Bell, Richard

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Reddy, M.

Boland, John

Higham, John Sharp

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bowles, Lt-Col H F (Middlesex)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries

Brigg, John

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Bright, Allan Heywood

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Rickett, J. Compton

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Burns, John

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Burt, Thomas

Jacoby, James Alfred

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Butcher, John George

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Round, Rt. Hn. James

Buxton, NE(York, NR, Whitby)

Joicey, Sir James

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Caldwell, James

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cameron, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow)

Joyce, Michael

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew

Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.

Kitson, Sir James

Sheehy, David

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lambert, George

Slack, John Bamford

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lamont, Norman

Soares, Ernest J.

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Spear, John Ward

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sullivan, Donal

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leng, Sir John

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lloyd-George, David

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Tomkinson, James

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Donelan, Captain A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Turnour, Viscount

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield)

Duffy, William J.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Dunn, Sir William

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Welby, Lt. Col. A C E. (Taunton)

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edw.

Moss, Samuel

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Fenwick, Charles

Mount, William Arthur

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mobray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

Murphy, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Edward Mitchell.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nussey, Thomas Willans

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Doogan, P. C.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cullinan, J.

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset

Flower, Sir Ernest

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Tuff, Charles

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Pease, Herb Pike (Darlington)

Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury

Purvis, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Mooney and Mr. Nolan.

Groves, James Grimble

Rankin, Sir James

Lundon, W.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 18. (Division List No. 252.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Philipps, John Wynford

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Allen, Charles P.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Power, Patrick Joseph

Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

Hammond, John

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

Reddy, M.

Balcarres, Lord

Helder, Augustus

Reid, James (Greenock)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Higham, John Sharp

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hogg, Lindsay

Rickett, J. Compton

Bell, Richard

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Boland, John

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Brigg, John

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bright, Allan Heywood

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Burns, John

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Burt, Thomas

Joicey, Sir James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Butcher, John George

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Buxton, N E (York, N R, Whitby

Joyce, Michael

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Caldwell, James

Kilbride, Denis

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

Cameron, Robert

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sheehy, David

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow)

Kitson, Sir James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Campbell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.

Lambert, George

Slack, John Bamford

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Soares, Ernest J.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Spear, John Ward

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Sullivan, Donal

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Leng, Sir John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Lloyd-George, David

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

Tomkinson, James

Cremer, William Randal

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tuff, Charles

Crooks, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cullinan, J.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Turnour, Viscount

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Valentia, Viscount

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Donelan, Captain A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Moss, Samuel

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Duffy, William J.

Mount, William Arthur

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Duncan, J. Hastings

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dunn, Sir William

Murphy, John

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Edwards, Frank

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Edward Mitchell.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Parrott, William

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Partington, Oswald

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

Baker, Joseph Allen

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Austin, Sir John

Doogan, P. C.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Groves, James Grimble

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Colonel Nolan and Mr. Mooney.

Lundon, W.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Purvis, Robert

Question put, and agreed to.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
MR. SLACK MR. SLACK (Hertforshire, St. Albans) moved, on Clause 2 (Appointment of public trustee to be trustee, executor, etc.), the following additional sub-section:—"Notice of any proposed appointment of the public trustee either as a new or additional trustee shall where practicable be given to all persons beneficially interested who are resident in the United Kingdom and whose addresses are known to the persons proposing to make the appointment or applying to the Court for that purpose or if such beneficiaries are infants to their guardians." He said he desired to take that opportunity of thanking the Solicitor-General for the most generous spirit in which he had met his views as embodied in the Amendments on the Paper.
SIR ROBERT REIDseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 26, at end, to insert the words 'Notice of any proposed appointment of the public trustee either as a new on additional trustee shall be given to all persons beneficially interested who are resident in the United Kingdom and whose addresses are known to the persons proposing to made the appointment or applying to the Court for that purpose or if such beneficiaries are infants to their guardims.'"—(Mr. Slack.)
Question, proposed. "That those words be there inserted."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,said he should advise the House to accept the Amendment as reasonable, and, in thanking the hon. Member opposite for what he had said, acknowledged the ready manner in which he had met the endeavour of the promoters to
1506
preserve and carry out the objects of the Bill.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsupported the Amendment, though he did not understand the need of the words "where practicable." He thought those general words largely negatived the value of the Amendment. He should like to hear concrete cases to which they might apply. He took it that those words had been accepted by his hon. friend as some compromise, and in the interest of peace, but he was not bound by such an indefinite compromise, and he should like to know why the words were said to be necessary.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that what was meant to be done by those words was to prevent the absence of them, in impracticable cases, from being a fatal objection. He regretted to hear that the hon. Member for South Islington was not a friend of peace.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I repudiate that suggestion entirely. In other respects I support the Amendment, bat I do not want a hollow peace with, slanders of my hon. profession, which, as a whole and with comparatively few exceptions, is honourable.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid nobody knew better than he did the honourable way in which the duties of the legal profession were discharged in this country, but he thought there were cases also, as in every profession, of black sheep, and it was the duty of Parliament to do all that could be done to safeguard the public in those exceptional cases. What was meant to be done by these words was to prevent the absence of them, in impracticable cases, from being a fatal objection. It was impossible to specify all the possible contingencies which might happen.
MR. SLACKsaid his reason for accepting the words was that there might be a difficulty in ascertaining who were the persons beneficially interested.
MR. MOSSasked what was to be the test of "where practicable." The expression was vague and its introduction in the clause might give rise to a great deal of litigation.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he thought the words were necessary. If there was any technical difficulty in the way he would have the words recast.
MR. CHARLES McARTHUR MR. CHARLES McARTHUR (Liverpool, Exchange) moved to insert the following sub-section: "If in the execution of any trust any discretion is vested in the public trustee the Court may, upon the application of any person interested under the instrument creating the trust or otherwise, direct in what manner such discretion shall be exercised." He said the Amendment had not been framed in any hostility to the Bill. The object of these words was to protect beneficiaries against official supineness. Where there was discretion given under a trust to, for instance, carry on a business or sell it, the public trustee, it was thought, would naturally be disposed to take that course which involved the least responsibility. The Amendment provided for beneficiaries, who were not satisfied with the course which the public trustee proposed to take, going before the Court and asking that the public trustee should be directed what he was to do.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert the words, 'If in the execution of any trust any discretion is vested in the public trustee the Court may upon the application of any person interested under the instrument creating the trust or otherwise direct in what manner such discretion shall be exercised.'"—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDWARD CARSONhoped that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. If it were carried it would render a great deal of litigation possible on small matters. The Bill already provided that, where discretion was vested by the settler or testator in any co-trustee of
1508
the public trustee the co-trustee should have the fullest power, altogether outside the opinion of the public trustee.
MR. BUTCHERexpressed the opinion that the terms of the Amendment were too wide, because it enabled, a beneficiary in all matters connected with the disposal of an estate to go to Court and waste the trust funds in getting the opinion of the Court as to the discretion of the public trustee. There might be cases in which the public trustee ought not to exercise discretion, as, for instance, in the case of a testator making his will before this Act was passed and intending that a private trustee should deal with it. A business man might leave the carrying on of his business in the hands of trustees, and the exercise of their discretion in carrying on or disposing of the business would be a matter of vital moment to the trust estate. The testator would presume that the trustees or their successors would exercise their discretion properly, but under this Bill it might very well happen that the public trustee would be the sole trustee under that estate to exercise discretion.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid in that case any beneficiary would be entitled, to bring the matter before the Court.
MR. BUTCHERthought he was right in saying that where the discretion was left to the trustee by the testator the Court would not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it was being exercised wrongly; therefore, the public trustee, being left the sole trustee, unless controlled in some way would be entitled to exercise discretion in an absolutely unfettered way. In matters of importance he thought it would be only right that a beneficiary should, be able to go to Court and obtain control of the exercise of t discretion by the public trustee. Such a provision was in his opinion necessary to carry out the wishes of a testator.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid it was no good saying that beneficiaries could apply to the Court to get certain things done. They all knew how short was the time taken

1509
in doing these things when they went into Court. He was strongly opposed to the matter being taken up by a public official. This question of the application of any person interested was a most important one, and he hoped the Amendment would be carried.
MR. CRIPPSsaid that so far as the exercise of discretion was concerned the public trustee was not in the same position as a private trustee; he was not a relation or friend of the family concerned. A private trustee was. In the case which had been instanced, namely, that of carrying on a business or selling it, the public trustee would have no knowledge whatever of the business, and he was not the person who should determine a matter of that sort. The Solicitor-General had said that they could bring the matter before the Court, but he doubted whether they could do it in the sense suggested. Let them put aside the question of mala fides, and take the case where a testator had given discretion to carry on his business or not. Supposing the public trustee decided in a particular manner, whether to carry it on or not, the Court of Chancery would never interfere with the trustee under these conditions. They would say that the discretion had been vested in him, and that he had exercised it straightforwardly. Surely that was not a discretion which should be vested in the public trustee who had no special knowledge at all. He thought some Amendment in this direction should be introduced.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he considered there was a great difference between a private trustee and a public trustee in the matter of the exercise of discretion. A private trustee was selected by the testator because of his special knowledge of the question or business in which the testator was interested. Everybody knew that a member of the testator's family or the family solicitor was appointed trustee simply because of a knowledge he possessed of the testator's affairs, and, of course, if he had not had that special knowledge, or if he had not had a way of looking at things approved
1510
by the testator, he would not have been given that discretion by the testator. When they dealt with the public trustee, however, they found the case was quite different. A testator was not likely to give discretion in the disposal of his business to a public trustee who knew nothing about it. He did not want to stop the Bill, but looked with some suspicion upon the objection raised to protecting the testator's interests and the beneficiaries' interest by some such Amendment as this.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he thought his hon. friend was in error in regard to the effect of the Bill. It should be remembered that when this Bill was passed into law no person would be prevented from appointing a private trustee to exercise his discretion just as could be done at the present moment. As to the exercise of discretion by the public trustee, he agreed with his hon. friend that it was better that some one familiar with the business should exercise discretion, but it might be that such a person was not available. The clause proposed that the discretion should be constantly subject to revision by a Judge. The bona fide exercise of discretion would not be disturbed by that supervision, but this Amendment, if inserted, would encourage constant applications to the Court by cantankerous and litigious people. The Solicitor-General had already said that he would consider whether any other form of words could be adopted.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid it was true that a testator might appoint a private trustee, but there were cases in which the public trustee might be or become the only trustee. Was he to be at liberty to exercise his discretion in matters with regard to which, as had been pointed out, the Court would not interfere under present conditions? He could not conceive anything more fatal to the interest I of a trust estate than that such discretion should be left in the hands of the public; trustee. What would happen in the case of a great commercial or shipping business? There might have to be applications to the Court perpetually. In the administration of such an estate, where the

1511
trustee was unfitted to exercise discretion, the parties must go to the Court, and make application to control and direct the trustee, whose judgment might be entirely wrong. He thought this Amendment was most called for and absolutely essential, and the alternative suggested by the Solictor-General of a general administration of the Estate would paralyse a commercial business and dissipate the Estate in legal costs. This would be the effect of this Bill unless properly amended, and made practical and workable, failing which, like the Judicial Trustees Act, it would fail in its purpose and become a dead letter.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he trusted the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. According to the present policy of the Court of Chancery they would not interfere with the exercise of the discretion of a private trustee unless it could be shown that it had been exercised wrongfully. He quite accepted that view, but the Court would have to deal, after this Bill became law, with an attempt to control the discretion of an official trustee. It was quite obvious that, when a learned Judge was invited to deal with the discretion of an official trustee, he would apply different considerations to the discretion of a public trustee than he would apply to the discretion of a private trustee. The private trustee had been given discretion by the testator or settler in accordance with the views he held of the judgment of the person in whom he reposed confidence. It was clear that no Court would interfere with the discretion of that person, and it was for that reason that the present policy had grown up which induced the Court to leave that discretion entirely unfettered, unless it could be shown that the trustee was influenced by some interested motive.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid it must be obvious that there was something to be provided for which was not in the Bill. There was an evil to be avoided at both ends. It might be that the refusal to act by a public trustee would be equal to the misguided action of a private trustee. On the other hand, they did not want a process of substituting the Court of
1512
Chancery for the public trustee. It had been suggested that application might be made to the Court that the public trustee, although acting bona fide, either by his proposed action or proposed refusal to act, was causing substantial detriment to the estate.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that he would draft an Amendment to the effect that the proposed provision should apply in cases where, through the action or inaction of the trustee, the estate had suffered detriment.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR, on that promise, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. H. D. GREENE MR. H. D. GREENE (Shrewsbury) moved to omit Sub-section 3. He did so with the object of moving later on a new clause to provide that the Lord Chancellor should, with the concurrence of the Treasury, make rules for carrying into effect the objects of the Act. He believed that the Bill had been drafted at a period antecedent to the Publication of Rules Act. The object of the Amendment was to bring into one clause which was set down later, all the occasions on which rules were to be made by the Lord Chancellor.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 6, to leave out Subsection 3."—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he believed that the hon. Gentleman was quite right, and he accepted the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR moved the next Amendment standing in his name which was to the effect that the Act should not be made retrospective.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 12, at the end, to add the; words, 'Provided that this section shall only

1513
apply to the will of a person dying, or to a settlement or other instrument executed after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)
"Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the Amendment was out of order, because they had already passed words that the Act should apply to wills or settlements made before the passing of the Act.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that the Amendment was decidedly out of order.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 13, to leave out the words, 'general order' and insert the word 'rule."—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
Amendment agreed to.
SIR A. HELDERsaid that the object of the Amendment standing in his name was that if an application was made to appoint a public trustee on a will or settlement it was desirable that that should be restricted so that the consent of persons interested should be obtained before the application was granted.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 16, after the word 'administration,' to insert the words 'subject to the right of the next of kin or any person thereunto now by law entitled to a grant of administration.'"—(Sir Augustus Helder.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he had put down an Amendment for a subsequent stage that, "as between the public trustee and the widower, widow, or next of kin of the deceased, the widower, widow, or next of kin shall be preferred, unless for good cause shown to the contrary." That was giving the preference which the hon. Member desired.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert the word 'and that as between the public
1514
trustee and the widower, widow, or next of kin of the deceased, the widower, widow, or next of kin shall be preferred, unless for good cause shown to the contrary.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he wished to move to leave out of Clause 5 the words "fraud or negligence" for the purpose of substituting "act, or omission," as the ground on which liability would arise.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 5, to leave out the words 'fraud or negligence' and insert the words 'act or omission'—(Mr. Charles McArthur)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether the Amendment did not go beyond the terms of the money Resolution, which provided such a sum as might be required to make good liabilities arising out of the default of the public trustee.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that he must rule that "default" would cover "omission," but not "act."
MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid that he would substitute the words "omission or default" for those he originally moved. He argued that where people were asked to depend on a public official they should feel that if, through any improper act of the official, loss was caused, the Consolidated Fund would make it good. Unless they gave that complete satisfaction, they would really give no satisfaction at all.
SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he hoped that the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be very carefully considered by the Solicitor-General before he agreed to it. He had grave doubts in his own mind as to the wisdom of the Bill at all. He did feel that although trusts and settlements were necessary in this country it was doubtful whether they were so

1515
much to the public advantage as to justify the State not merely in allowing them, but in setting up a public department to undertake their supervision. That principle, however, had been practically accepted, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would save the taxpayers from any loss except that which was incurred by some malfeasance on the part of the public trustee. If the measure was as largely availed of as its supporters seemed to anticipate, the burden imposed on the taxpayers might be very considerable if the possibility of imposing it extended beyond malfeasance. He therefore hoped that his right hon. and learned friend would resist this Amendment.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the words introduced in the Bill were those with reference to which the money Resolution was passed. These words had been very carefully considered, and it would be impossible to accept the Amendment without throwing an undue burden upon the taxpayers, and at the same time creating rights as against the public trustee which did not exist now in the case of any private trustee. What would be an omission? If a public trustee took money out of one security and put it into another security, although he was perfectly honest in so doing, would that be an "omission" and would the Consolidated Fund be liable? So long as the public trustee acted without fraud or negligence nobody could ask for more. He ventured to think that if they tried to extend these words they would raise an indefinite obligation on the Consolidated Fund, which it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to consider
MR. SPEAKERsaid that, having had a little more time to consider the matter, he ruled that the House had no power to go beyond what the Committee had decided. The real authority to decide whether the words of the clause came within the phrase used in the money Resolution was the Committee, and the House had no power to extend the liability which the Committee had imposed. On that ground, he therefore ruled that the Amendment of the hon. Member was out of order.
MR. BUTCHERasked whether fraud or negligence meant a breach of trust. He ventured to think that a public trustee ought to be as much responsible for a breach of trust as a private trustee. He would move to omit the words "fraud or negligence" in order to insert the words "breach of trust."
MR. SPEAKER: I think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman comes within the ruling I have just given. I cannot say whether a breach of trust is greater or less than fraud or negligence.
MR. BUTCHERasked whether fraud or negligence included breach of trust.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he was only a poor common-law lawyer; but the words "fraud and negligence" would be better understood than "breach of trust."
MR. BUTCHERsaid that in line 8 he wished to move an Amendment to leave out the words "Act or" for the purpose of getting an Answer to the Question he had already asked. It should be known whether the public trustee was or was not responsible for a breach of trust; and whether it would be possible to make a charge on the Treasury.
MR. CRIPPSsaid the matter mentioned was very important. He did not ask for any special words at the moment. When the Bill was introduced, it was understood that a poor man could not suffer through the public trustee, and that the Consolidated Fund would provide for anything in the nature of fraud. A breach of trust had nothing to do with fraud or negligence, and the question was what protection was to be given in the case of the public trustee.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 8, to leave out the words 'act or.'"
Question proposed, "That the words 'act of' stand part or the Bill."
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that under the Bill, if the clause were not amended, the Cestui que trust might be placed in a

1517
worse position than the ordinary beneficiary. The trustee might be accused of indiscretion, but the remedy would be at the cost of the estate. The cases in which there would be a remedy would, however, be limited to fraud or negligence. The hon. Member for York pressed the Solicitor-General to state whether the public trustee would be as liable as an ordinary trustee for breaches of trust. He would put a case which would not be covered by the words of the Bill. An investment, not in a trust security, might be made neither by fraud nor negligence, but might possibly lead to the loss of the estate, in which case the beneficiary would suffer. He invited a special Answer to his hon. friend's Question. Was there an indemnity on the part of the State in connection with the public trustee for breaches of trust? If not, the last state of the beneficiary might be worse than the first; he might be out of the frying-pan into the fire. And if the State had to pay the piper, the cost to the taxpayers of all this officialism, red tape, buildings, losses, etc., might be enormous, for no proportionate benefit. The Bill was a clumsy and badly drawn measure for its purpose, for to the principle of the proper protection of trust funds by a responsible custodian, whether public or private, he had no objection whatever, but the contrary.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that it appeared quite evident when the Bill was Introduced that the public trustee would take on himself all the responsibilities of an ordinary trustee. He was, however, rather suspicious at the refusal of the Government to assent to the words "breach of trust." He certainly thought the public trustee would be placed under the same conditions as an ordinary trustee; and the Solicitor-General should make the matter clear now. It seemed to him extraordinary that the Government should protect the public trustee from ordinary responsibility.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid it was an extraordinary provision that the Courts should be given the power proposed.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDasked how the public would be benefited by the Bill if they received no security that the estate, when it came to the public trustee, would be properly administered. At the present time if a trustee got rid of the trust property he was liable to make it good, and had to pay it back, bat as the Bill now stood if the public trustee did anything wrong, except they could prove mala fides, the public were worse off than before because he was not liable.
MR. GEORGE FABERurged the House to be extremely careful to see that the remedy was not worse than the disease. The Lord Chancellor would have a free hand in the making of the rules, and upon that would depend the efficacy or otherwise of the enactment. The bait held out from the beginning was that they would get away from the fraudulent solicitor to some person of security, but apparently the condition of things would not be any better under this clause but rather worse, because under the present condition of the law a trustee was liable for breach of trust, but under this clause they would have a public trustee comfortably ensconsed behind a fat salary whom they would not be able to make responsible unless he was guilty of fraud or negligence. On the other hand, directly it was sought to make the public trustee liable for all breaches of trust the Treasury came forward and said they were putting a larger burden on the Consolidated Fund than they were entitled to do. He urged the Committee, in their desire to get out of the clutches of rogues, not to fall into the hands of fools; because, it was not unlikely that the person who would be appointed public trustee would not be a trained man of business, and would thus be incapable of discharging satisfactorily the great responsibilities of his position. Let them not, in avoiding Scylla, fall into Charybdis.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid it was wonderful how hon. Members imagined they were in a state of perfection as to the liability of trustees. Perhaps the most amusing part of the whole debate was the way in which they had been saying there was to be no security at all. They were only to have the Consolidated Fund

1519
of the United Kingdom to back up the public trustee whenever there was a case of fraud or negligence. Would his hon. friend tell him of any single case ordinarily arising in which money was lost which would not be covered by the words of the Bill? He could conceive no case among what might be called the ordinary cases which happened day by day which was not covered by the words "fraud and negligence." His hon. friend put the case of a trustee who had erred through ignorance, but who had acted throughout in a perfectly honest manner. His hon. friend, he thought, when he put the case must have forgotten the Act of Parliament passed in 1896 which provided, among other things, that where it appeared in a transaction which was alleged to be a breach of trust that the trustee had acted honestly and reasonably he might be excused that breach of trust. If the words proposed were put in here the public trustee would not have the benefit of the enactment covering the case when a trustee acted absolutely honestly. If you protected people against fraud and negligence you protected them against everything that was essential in the practical working of the Trustees Act. He was sure there was strong feeling in the country that this enactment was very much wanted, and he hoped the House would not be led away by any matters not of practical importance from the important issues before them in the short time at their disposal.
MR. BUTCHERsaid he had no desire to waste time, and, although he did not regard the explanation as satisfactory, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 12, to leave out Subsection (2).'"—(Mr. H. D. Greene.)
Amendment negatived.
MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid the object of the Amendment he had now to propose was to safeguard the interest of the life tenant. He submitted that where the estate consisted of money in securities and it was simply a question
1520
of remitting the income to the beneficiary no charge should be made by the public trustee. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 21, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that no fees shall be charged in respect of the income arising from the investments of any trust fund or trust estate which can be remitted under written directions from the person or company or corporation liable to pay the same direct to the usufructuary or to any person or persons or bank or to any other destination to or which he is authorised to direct the same to be paid, remitted, or Bent.'"—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The fees must be collected by rule of the Treasury and no exceptions could be made. If they once began to make exceptions it would be impossible to carry out the object of the Bill. If the Bill was to work it would be necessary to make the fees as small as possible.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not quite follow the purpose of this Amendment, but the argument of the Solicitor-General was that the whole thing would be provided for by rules made by the Lord Chancellor. One of his great objections to this Bill was the large powers it gave to the Lord Chancellor, who was set up as a sort of autocrat and endowed with powers almost equalling those of a Secretary of State. A large proportion of those things which it was now proposed to leave to the Lord Chancellor to settle should, in his opinion, be settled in the Bill itself.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he moved the Amendment standing in his name because he thought in many cases in small trust estates there would have to be a preliminary investigation on the part of the public trustee to see whether the trust was such a trust as he could accept. If it was not such a trust, then, in his opinion, the public trustee should be entitled to a fee for the preliminary investigation.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 24, after the first word 'paid' to insert the words 'including if required a preliminary fee for investigating the particulars of the trust or executorship proposed to be vested in the public trustee.'"—(Sir William Tomlinson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the rules under the Bill would lay down what the fees were which were to be charged and they would also point out what the duties of the trustee were. He hoped the Amendment would not be proceeded with.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the next Amendment was for the purpose of preventing any profit being made from the revenue out of the fees beyond what might be necessary to give the taxpayers indemnity against any loss.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 29, at the end, to insert the words '(4) The fees under this section shall be arranged from time to time so as to produce an annual amount sufficient to discharge the salaries and other expenses incidental to the working of this Act (including such sum as the Treasury may from time to time determine to be required to insure the Consolidated Fund against loss under this Act), and no more.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JAMES JOICEYobjected to the wording of the Amendment as vague. Supposing there were certain estates in the hands of the public trustee and there was a great loss in one of them owing to his fraud and negligence. Those who had other estates to put into his hands had to pay for that loss, although they had in no way contributed to it. He confessed he did not like giving all that power to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor had immense power as it was, and it appeared to him that this would be a sort of second death duty for everybody whose estate came into the public trustee's hands.
MR. PERKSsaid he would like to know whether these new officials would be subject to any guarantee. Would they be guaranteed in any way up to a certain amount, the costs of the guarantees to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund? If not, he would suggest that that was a point which ought to be considered. He also drew attention to another point. He had known many cases where breaches of trust were quite distinct from any fraud or negligence, and he suggested that the Amendment would not enable the beneficiaries to get charged against that account anything excepting the losses arising from fraud and negligence, and therefore the beneficiaries were not protected against those breaches of trust which did not come under the phrase "fraud or negligence." Moreover the public trustee now to be appointed would have a multitude of small estates to deal with, and therefore the protection of the beneficiary would be a great deal less than it was at the present moment.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that if the fees were to be applied to meet losses due to the negligence of the public trustee, the beneficiaries would be made to pay their own insurance, and the Treasury would lose all interest in looking after the property.
SIR ROBERT REIDsuggested the adoption of the procedure under the Registration of Titles Act in Australia.
MR. GEORGE FABERpointed out that there were both cheap and safe ways of guarding the estates of testators, but he considered this neither safe nor economical. If the public trustee invested a large sum unwisely, the result might be a heavy loss. How was it to be made good? Under the procedure set up by this Amendment other estates would have to make the loss good. Why should B's estate pay for the loss on A's estate consequent on a bad investment by the public trustee? To his mind it was a case of "Thank you for nothing." His right hon. friend said "Do not employ the public trustee," but could the Solicitor-General assure him that when he was dead his estate might not by any

1523
possibility fall into the grasp of the gentleman appointed under this Bill?
SIR EDWARD CARSON: It would not, if you made proper provision for the appointment of other trustees.
MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that in his opinion this Amendment involved putting on the estates of dead men an expense both unmerited and uncalled for.
MR. SOARESheld that as the public trustee was to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury, the latter body ought to be held responsible for any laches on the part of the trustee; losses caused by either fraud or negligence on his part should be recouped out of the Consolidated Fund. The public trustee would be paid out of the fees levied on the estate administered.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITconsidered the suggestion a very reasonable one. He held that the proposal of the Government would make the administration of estates a very costly proceeding, seeing that beneficiaries would have to pay official fees not only for their own protection, but also for the protection of another estate in respect of which the public trustee might be liable. The principle of the Bill was not in question to-day, and their object was so to amend the Bill as to make it just and. acceptable and so workable, and not like the Judicial Trustees Act, a nullity.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid he did not see why the public trustee, who would be highly paid, should not pay his own fees for insurance.
COLONEL PILKINGTONthough this Amendment was a trick. He had never heard of such a monstrous suggestion, and he suggested that it was due to the interference of the Treasury. He could not think such a proposal could have emanated from the Solicitor-General.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: It is not the Treasury who is responsible for it.
COLONEL PILKINGTONthought it was the first time a legal mind had ever framed such an extraordinary suggestion, and looking at it as a business man and not as a lawyer he honestly felt it would be much better to withdraw it.
MR. EDMUND FABERdesired to know where the money was to come from if the public trustee was guilty of incompetence. In 99 cases out of 100 an estate suffered from the incompetence of the trustee and not from his fraud, and he ought to be made responsible if guilty of incompetence.
Question put.
Sir HOWARD VINCENT and Mr. CROOKSwere appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes Mr. SPEAKER declared the Ayes had it.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, to leave out Clause 7."—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
SIR EDWARD CARSON SIR EDWARD CARSON moved in page 4, line 12, to add the words "but he shall not decline to accept any trust on the ground only of the small value of the trust property."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 12, at the end, to insert tie words 'but he shall not decline to accept any trust on the ground only of the small value of the trust property.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid the public trustee should be obliged to accept any trust that was brought before him, whether it was exactly what he desired or not. He did not think he should be allowed to refuse to act because a trust was not exactly to his liking.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the clause as it originally stood in this

1525
Bill gave the public trustee almost unlimited discretion to accept, or refuse to accept, any trust. The Amendment limited that discretion, but the limitation was not sufficient. For instance, the public trustee might decline to fulfil his duty because the property, although large in value, might be a troublesome one. If they were going to set up a great public department with an expensive officer for the purpose of taking over trust property, there ought to be no power to decline to undertake the duty for which the officer was established.
MR. GEORGE FABERentirely agreed with his hon. friend that the Amendment did not go far enough. He saw no logic in setting up a great department of State to which anybody was entitled to go unless the department was obliged to accept the trust.
SIR JAMES JOICEYurged that the public trustee should be compelled to accept any trust that was brought before him, and should not have the power to decline because, for instance, some investment was involved which might cause him considerable trouble.
MR. MARTINheld there should be no power to decline any trust.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that would be impossible in view of the words already introduced. It would make the whole thing nonsense.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid this Amendment modified a most objectionable provision in the Bill to which, however, they had already assented. The Amendment had therefore better be made as reducing the evil.
SIR AUGUSTUS HELDERsuggested that the words "or the difficulty of carrying out the trust" should be added to the Amendment.
MR. SPEAKERsaid those words could be added after the Amendment had been carried.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid cases must arise in which it would be impossible for the public trustee to act. Take, for instance, the Rhodes will. He could not administer such an estate as that. It was only to guard against cases of that kind that the clause had been inserted.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 253.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

Burt, Thomas

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Butcher, John George

Duffy, William J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Caldwell, James

Duncan, J, Hastings

Allen, Charles P.

Cameron, Robert

Elibank, Master of

Ambrose, Robert

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Fenwick, Charles

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Austin, Sir John

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fison, Frederick William

Baker, Joseph Allen

Coddington, Sir William

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Balcarres, Lord

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Flynn, James Christopher

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cremer, William Randal

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

Benn, John Williams

Crombie, John William

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cullinan, J.

Grant, Corrie

Bigwood, James

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Delany, William

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

Boland, John

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Bond, Edward

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Donelan, Captain A.

Hammond, John

Bright, Allan Heywood

Doogan, P. C.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Burke, E. Haviland

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hill, Henry Staveley

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hogg, Lindsay

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Soares, Ernest J.

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Norton, Capt Cecil William

Spencer. Rt Hn C R (Northants)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Sullivan, Donal

Joicey, Sir James

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Jones David B. (Swansea)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Parrott, William

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Joyce, Michael

Partington, Oswald

Toulmin, George

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Perks, Robert William

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Kilbride, Denis

Philipps, John Wynford

Ure, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Power, Patrick Joseph

Valentia, Viscount

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Walker, Col. William Hall

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Wallace, Robert

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Reddy, M.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Leng, Sir John

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Lundon, W.

Rickett, J Compton

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.).

Macdona, John Cumming

Robinson, Brooke

Wilson, J W (Worcestersh. N.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

M'Artnur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

M'Kean, John

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Howard Vincent and Mr. Crooks.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight)

Mooney, John J.

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Morrell, George Herbert

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Holder, Augustus

Rankin, Sir James

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baldwin, Alfred

Hunt, Rowland

Renwick, George

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Lambert, George

Spear, John Ward

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Duke, Henry Edward

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Tuff, Charles

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Martin, Richard Biddulph

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Faber, George Denison (York

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland and Sir Joseph Dimsdale.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Groves, James Grimble

Purvis, Robert

And, it being after half-past Five of clock, Further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
NEW BILL.
  RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS (COMPENSATION).
  Bill to make better provision for the Compensation of Rural District Councils in respect of loss occasioned by an alteration of the area or boundaries of their districts, ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Yerburgh.
  RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS (COMPENSATION) BILL.
  "To make better provision for the Compensation of Rural District Councils in respect of loss occasioned by an alteration of the area or boundaries of their districts," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 28th July, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]

  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments from the Select Committee, with Special Report and Minutes of Evidence. Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 231.]
  Bill, as amended, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Mr. Speaker's Retirement Bill; Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
  Amendments to—Hythe Corporation Bill [Lords]; Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company. Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company Bill [Lords].

  RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER COMPANY BILL [LORDS]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.