Commons Sitting of 19 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

Mr. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting, owing to indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. Emmott, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Edinburgh Suburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ardrossan, Saltcoats, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dunbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SECOND BALLOT).
Petition from Govan, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petition from Shifnal, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  REMUNERATION OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES.
  Address for "Return showing, in regard to the Remuneration received by
  1486
  the Consulting Engineers to the Crown Colonies and Protectorates for their services in connection with the construction of railways which have been undertaken upon their recommendation, (1) what has been the amount of their Remuneration from this source during the last ten years; (2) how it is assessed; and (3) from what fund or funds it has been paid."—(Mr. Walker.)

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Return ordered, "as to the proceedings of Distress Committees under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, in England and Wales, up to the 31st day of March, 1906."—(Mr. John Burns.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Fair Rent Decision—Cost of Copies of Orders.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that agreements fixing a fair rent in the County Courts in Ireland twenty years ago are sent to the Public Record Office, Four Courts, Dublin, and that to procure a copy of same costs 3s. 6d., whilst in the ordinary way copies of these documents are supplied for 1s.; does the same charge apply in the case of County Court; fair-rent orders; and, in view of the fact that this charge often presses hardly on poor tenants, will he secure that in future a uniform charge of 1s. be made for copies of orders or agreements, no matter when filed.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I am informed by the Land Commission that they understand that records of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace for each county, when more than twenty years old, are sent to the Public Records Office of Ireland year by year under the warrant of the Master of the Rolls, and that the fees for certified copies of such documents have been fixed, pursuant to statute, at 6d. per folio of seventy-two words. These fees could only be altered by the Master of the Rolls with Treasury sanction. Copies of agreements fixing fair rents filed in the County Courts are not very numerous. As a rule they contain four

  1487
  folios, in which case the charge would be 2s. each. When such fair-rent agreements are filed in the Land Commission, copies under the seal of the Commission can be obtained for 1s. each. Similarly, while the original agreements remain with the Clerks of the Crown and Peace, they are bound by the rules of the Land Commission to furnish copies at 1s. each, and it is their duty to send copies for recording by the Land Commission. The hon. Member does not indicate for what purpose it is necessary that tenants requiring fair-rent agreements which are more than twenty years old should go to the Public Records Office.- If this were explained the Land Commissioners would be placed in a better position to report on the question raised.

  Salaries of English and Irish Prison Officials.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what salaries do warders, matrons (assistant), and clerks in the English prison service receive; what salaries do warders, assistant matrons, and clerks in the Irish prison service receive; is it the intention of the Government to increase the salaries of warders and assistant matrons in the Irish prison service, whose duties are as arduous as those of officers in the English service, on the same lines as is about to take effect in April next in England; and, as clerks in the Irish prison service, whose duties are as difficult as in England, have to serve seventeen and a half years to get an increment of £35, an equal amount being given in increments in England in seven years, will the Government consider the advisability of giving clerks in the Irish service their total increments in seven years and placing them on the same footing as to salary as in England.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The present rates of pay of the officers mentioned in both the English and the Irish prison services will be found in the Estimates for the current year. The Irish Government have no knowledge of any intention to increase the salaries of English prison officers, and if the hon. Member desires information on the subject he should address my right hon. friend the Home
  1488
  Secretary. The question of increasing the pay of Irish prison officers has not recently been under consideration.

  Married Women's Property—Liability of Wife with Separate Estate.
  MR. MACLEAN: To ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of the advantages conferred upon married women in respect of debts incurred by them for necessaries, as recently shown in the case of "Paquin v. Beauclerk," he will take an early opportunity of introducing legislation for the purpose of rendering the separate estate of the wife liable where the husband cannot be compelled to pay.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) This subject is being seriously considered. I cannot at present express any opinion upon it.

  Removal of Bag Room at Glasgow Post Office.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the intention of the postmaster of Glasgow to have the bag room at Glasgow removed to the basement of the building; and if the opinion of the district medical officer has been obtained as to the advisability of such a change; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) One of the two bag rooms at Glasgow is at present on the ground floor and the other in the basement. As part of a scheme of much needed improvements in the accommodation, including better cloak rooms and retiring rooms for part of the staff, it is proposed to give more space for the bag rooms and to put both in the basement. I understand that he medical officer has, in conversation, expressed doubts about the advisability of this arrangement, but I have not received any Report from him. I have directed that he should be consulted further before the alterations are carried out.

  Reduction of Shrewsbury Telegraph Staff.
  MR. HENRY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will take into consideration, should further reduction be necessary in the

  1489
  telegraph force at Shrewsbury, that this may be made from the female staff rather than that the married men should be compelled to leave Shrewsbury and go to other towns and, when vacancies occur which have to be filled up, that the appointment should be made, if possible, of men in preference to women.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Until the time comes for reducing the staff at Shrewsbury it is impossible for me to say how the reduction, should be effected, but the hon. Member may be assured that all the circumstances to which he refers will be fully considered and the reduction made with the least possible hardship to any section of the staff.

  Promotion of Assistant Surveyors of the Civil Staff for Engineer Services.
  MR. RIDSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the serious block in the promotion of the assistant surveyors of the civil staff for engineer services; whether the amelioration of the alleged grievances of this body have been now under consideration for some nine years; and what early steps, if any, he proposes to take to remedy this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I can assure my hon. friend that no time has been lost since the present Government came into office in the consideration of this question. Adeputation of the officials concerned has been received at the War Office, and the Army Council hope that they will be in a position to give a decision upon the matter early next session.

  Gun Licence for Michael Cronin of Listowel.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Michael Cronin, of Finuge, Listowel, has applied for and was refused a gun licence; and, seeing that Michael Cronin is a man of high character and respectability, whether he will state on what grounds or for what reason his application was refused.
  (Answered, by Mr. Bryce.) The discretion of issuing arms licences is vested in the resident magistrate of the district,
  1490
  and it would be quite contrary to practice to state the grounds which influence a resident magistrate in the exercise of that discretion.

  Bonuses Paid Under the Land Act.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will have prepared a Return, made up to date, of all persons to whom bonus has been paid under the Land Act of 1903, showing in respect of each the county in which the land sold is situate, the amount of bonus paid in respect of tenanted and untenanted land respectively, the number of years purchase of rent paid for the former; and will he have this information given periodically in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question of 13th instant,†when he asked for a somewhat similar Return. For the reasons then fully stated, the Land Commission do not think it desirable, to give the Return now asked for. Full particulars of the number of years purchase given for tenanted land, and of the prices paid for untenanted land, appear in the Annual Reports of the Land Commission.

  Irish Local Taxations Accounts.
  MR. COGAN (Wicklow, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will take steps immediately to have the annual statement of receipts and expenditure of the Irish Local Taxation Account for each year since the passing of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, laid before Parliament with the least possible delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Delay in Erection of Fishery Harbour at Long Hole, Bangor, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Department of Agriculture offered to contribute towards the cost of erecting a fishery harbour at Long Hole, Bangor,
  †See Col. 648.

  1491
  county Down; whether the County Down County Council caused plans to be prepared; whether he can state the cause of the delay in proceeding with the work; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that under present arrangements the boats can only enter or leave this harbour for about two hours before and after high water, thus curtailing the time for fishing to about three hours in the day.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture offered to contribute one-fourth of the cost of the improvements at this harbour which were planned by the county surveyor and were estimated to cost £10,000. The county council, however, have no legal power to expend their funds on the harbour, which, being private property, is not vested in them. Access to the harbour by fishing boats is not possible before half tide.

  Irish National School Teachers Examinations.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether as national teachers under the old system obtained first of first class only after scoring an exceptionally high percentage on a difficult set of papers, embracing a wide range of subjects, and were only permitted to sit for examination after both head and district inspectors had certified that their schools had been conducted in a highly efficient manner for the three years preceding, he will, as a reward of scholarship and successful school keeping, direct the Commissioners of National Education to give special consideration to the case of any of these, with the requisite average attendance, who may yet be placed, under the new order of things, lower than first of first grade, in the event of any rearrangement of the salaries of Irish national teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the facts are substantially as stated in the earlier part of the Question. The Commissioners have submitted proposals on the subject in connection with next year's Estimates, and these are now under consideration.

  Sale of Colonel Malone's Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that on taking office he cancelled and superseded certain regulations and instructions affecting the sale of land, because they conflicted ith the law and with the intentions of Parliament, whether he will take steps to prevent the sale of Colonel Malone's estate being carried out, for the benefit of two graziers and to the permanent detriment of sixty necessitous families, under the old instructions and in a way which the Estates Commissioners would not permit under the regulations and instructions now in force.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am afraid that I cannot with advantage add any thing to the very full replies which I gave to the hon. Member's Questions on this subject on 17th instant.†The power of making advances for land purchase is vested by law in the Estates Commissioners. The hon. Member must understand that the construction which he places on the regulations is not admitted.

  Game Reserves in East Africa.
  MR. WHITBREAD: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has observed the estimate by Mr. F. J. Jackson, Deputy Commissioner for the East African Protectorate, given on page 344 of, [Cd. 3189], that the revenue derived from game licences, Customs dues, and other expenditure by hunting parties in that Protectorate cannot be less than £20,000 annually; that, in Mr. Jackson's opinion, the only hope of keeping up this revenue lies in the establishment of an efficient game ranger's department; whether the Government are taking, or contemplate taking, steps to establish such a department on an; adequate scale; whether the areas of the reserves in the East African Protectorate, the Budonga and Toro reserves in Uganda, and the Elephant Marsh reserve in British Central Africa have been reduced during the present year; if so, whether the Secretary of State has sanctioned such reductions; whether
  †See Col. 990–992.

  1493
  the regulations of the East Africa Game Ordinance, 1906, as to the size of ivory, have been relaxed as to ivory in transit from Uganda; whether his attention has been called to the remarks by Mr. Jackson, in paragraph 4, page 342, of the same Blue-book, on the trade in game hides from German East Africa via Mombasa; and whether the Government will take steps to check such trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of his Question I would refer him to Lord Elgin's despatch at page 386 of Cd. 3189, in which his Lordship instructed the Commissioner of the East Africa Protectorate to bring forward the question of establishing a Game Ranger's Department in connection with the Estimates for 1907–8. These estimates will be received very shortly, and the matter will then be carefully considered. With regard to the third part of the Question, the boundaries of the reserves in the East Africa Protectorate have been re-defined by the Ordinance of the 14th April, a copy of which is printed at pages 356–365 of Cd. 3189;but, so far as I can see, no important reductions have been made. The Budonga and Toro reserves in Uganda have been reduced during the present year, but, as the hon. Member will see on reference to page 354 of Cd. 3189, the former reserve is still approximately 560 square miles in extent and too large and difficult to be systematically controlled without a special staff, while the area of the latter is now about 970 square miles, the original boundaries having extended beyond all practical requirements. The area of the elephant marsh reserved in British Central Africa has been reduced since its establishment in 1897, but, so far as I am aware, no reduction has been made during the present year. The reductions referred to above have been sanctioned by the Secretary of State. With regard to the fourth part of the Question, Section 7 of the Game Ordinance of the East Africa Protectorate, No. 9 of 1906, empowers the Commissioner to make rules legalising the export in transit through the Protectorate of any ivory lawfully acquired
  1494
  in Uganda, even though of less weight than the minimum allowed by the Ordinance. The reasons for this exception are given at page 354 of Cd. 3189. With regard to the fifth part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to Lord Elgin's despatch which is printed at page 386 of Cd. 3189, and from which he will see that the Commissioner of the East Africa Protectorate has been requested to consider whether some arrangements cannot be made for stopping the trade in question.

  The State of the Congo—Interference of the Powers.
  MR. T. R. BETHELL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Power has shown a disposition to join with this country in bringing pressure to bear on the Government of the Congo Free State with a view to putting an end to the atrocities perpetrated in that territory.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Tottenham on the 14th instant,†respecting a communication from the United States Government, to which I have nothing to add.

  Diseased Pigs—Compensation for Seizure.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of pigs which passed the Government veterinary inspectors at the port of embarkation were seized and destroyed in Birmingham in the interest of the public; and whether, as the owners have complied with every requirement of the law, he will insert a clause in his Bill now before the House which will provide compensation for all such losses in future.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that pigs coming from Ireland are examined by Government veterinary inspectors at the port of embarkation, and I presume that it is to this inspection that the hon. Member refers. I am not able to state the exact proportion of Irish pigs sent to Birmingham, but I
  †See Col. 664.

  1495
  understand that, whilst the number of them is much larger than that of English pigs, the percentage condemned for tuberculosis is much smaller. The Bill mentioned in the last part of the Question has now been withdrawn.

  Vagrancy—Suggested Legislation.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government contemplate bringing in a Bill next session for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Vagrancy, or any of them.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) As, I stated recently in reply to my right hon. friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division, I am in communication with the Home Secretary on the subject, but I am not in a position to give any intimation as to legislation next session with regard to it.

  Postal Service at Ballydoo, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Post master General whether he will arrange to have a letter box erected at Ballydoo, Mayobridge, county Down, and to have it cleared once a day by the present postman; whether he is aware that nine Belfast linen houses have agencies in the district employing about 600 women and girls, and that inconvenience is caused by the defective service; and whether, as the extra cost could not exceed 5s. a week, he will take steps to have the required accommodation provided at once.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.

  Building of New Post Office at Newcastle, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can say when the building of the new post office at Newcastle, county Down, will be begun.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is hoped that the building will be begun early next year.

  Postal Facilities at Stafford town, County Antrim.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to a memorial signed by the residents of the Stafford town postal district, near Randallstown, county Antrim, and forwarded by them to the secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, asking for a change in the mode of delivering the letters by which a saving of several hours would be effected and an opportunity given for replying to letters on the same day as that on which they were received; and what steps he is prepared to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have not yet seen the memorial referred to, but I can assure the hon. Member that it shall receive careful consideration.

  Working of Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Act, 1906.
  MR. MORTON: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Act, 1906, is now in operation; and, if so, whether he has any official Reports showing that it is rendering the Act of 1895 effective and useful.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The Act came into operation on the 4th of August last. During the four months up to 3rd December, 155 inquiries were held, and in twenty-four of these the verdicts of the juries contained recommendations or expressions of opinion of a special nature. In every case where a jury made a recommendation with the view of suggesting means for preventing or lessening the risk of the recurrence of such accidents the recommendation has been brought under the notice of the deceased's employers. In some cases special notice has been taken by the Government inspectors, and, it is understood, communicated by them to their departments. In many cases the special verdicts appear to have been of much value in pointing out defects in machinery and in methods of working, and there seems little reason to doubt that the Act is tending strongly towards the avoidance of risk of injurious or fatal accidents to employees. There have been four inquiries under Section 3 of the new Act. It is reported to me by

  1497
  the Crown Office that the recent statute appears to have made an effective and useful amendment of the previous Act of 1895. I may add that I am in communication with my right hon. friend the Home Secretary on the subject of issuing such instructions as will secure that in the administration of the statute due advantage shall be taken of the services of the skilled inspectors, while on the other hand preserving the independent position which these gentlemen ought in my opinion to occupy. The working of the Act is being made the subject of careful observation in my own and other public departments.

  Purchase by the Indian Government of Property at Simla.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have given notice of purchasing, under the Lands Acquisition Act, the property called "Constantia" at Simla, which has been acquired with great difficulty and expense to provide much needed holiday homes for working women and girls at Simla, and for entry on which on 31st December every arrangement had been made; and whether other sites could be found available for Government purposes the taking of which would not be attended with inconvenience to a charitable institution conferring great public benefit.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Government of India have notified their intention of purchasing this property for a public purpose. The area of Simla is so limited that Government must have the first claim upon sites. But though they may find it necessary to insist on purchasing "Constantia," I have reason to hope that they may be able to arrive at a friendly settlement with its owners by the provision of a suitable site elsewhere.

  Publication of Army Pay Warrants.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether recent Army Orders and Warrants affecting soldiers'pay have been laid before Parliament; and, if not, whether it would be possible to circulate to Members any
  1498
  such Warrants as have been issued since the commencement of July last, including the instructions affecting service pay after 30th September, as well as proficiency pay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Royal Warrants affecting soldiers' pay, which have been issued since the commencement of July last, are: (a) That dealing with the additional pay of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men (Army Order 153, July); and (b) That dealing with soldiers' emoluments (Army Order 231, October). I may point out that Army Orders are on sale monthly at a cost of 3d., and thus accessible to all interested in Army matters. A copy of the Monthly Army Orders is also placed in the Library of the House for the convenience of members. I will, of course, lay those referred to above upon the Table of the House if there is a general desire for them.

  Army Discharges—Home and Overseas Stations.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mediterranean stations which count for linking purposes as Home stations under the Short Tour system are being counted as stations beyond the seas for the purpose of keeping time-expired men for an additional twelve months under Section 87 of the Army Act; whether he has any official reports showing that men who extended service to complete eight years with the Colours, and obtain Service Pay, were given to understand that by such extension they did not become liable to serve for another year if abroad on the expiration of the eight years; and whether he is able to make any statement on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In the circumstances at present existing, it has been found necessary to send out Home battalions a year or two before their linked battalion comes home. Such units being on Foreign Service, the men therein are kept for the extra year if abroad. Men who extended to obtain service pay extended to complete a fixed term, and are not, therefore, liable for the extra year in addition. They are brought home just prior to the expiration

  1499
  of their extended service or with all convenient speed on its termination.

  Return of Accidents to Battleships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to a list of seventy-six collisions and groundings of warships during 1905, given in the Return No. 319 issued on Monday, 10th December, whether the following have been omitted, and, if so, for what reason: "Vixen" and "Lee" in collision on or about 4th May, "Whiting" in collision at Wei-Hai-Wei on or about 30th June, H.M.S. "Jupiter" in collision off Dover with a Danish schooner and a brigantine on or about 27th July, and "Furious" in collision with "St. Vincent" while proceeding out of Portsmouth Harbour on or about 12th September.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is regretted that the collision of the "Vixen" and "Lee," and of the "Jupiter," and the Danish brigantine "Caroline" were omitted from the Return in question by inadvertence. The repairs to the "Vixen" occupied three weeks, and the damage to the "Jupiter" was too slight to require special repairs. There is no record of any mishap to the "Whiting" and "Furious" on the dates named.

  Sale of Chains and Cables of Obsolete War Vessels.
  MR. HOOPER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the cables and chains belonging to the obsolete war vessels are sold without being treated according to the Order of 1894 relating to disused Government chains.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Chain cables of His Majesty's ships are periodically examined and if found to be unserviceable are mutilated at the dockyards before being offered for sale. But if any chain cables left on board obsolete ships when sold are still fit for use, and would continue to be used if the ships were retained, this cable is not mutilated. It is usual in selling any vessel to sell with her the minimum of cable required for mooring.

  Vacancies in Top Rates of Pay in His Majestys Dockyards.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are now, and have been for years vacancies, at the top rates of pay in His Majesty's dockyards; and whether he can see his way to have such vacancies filled up without any further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am not clear to what trade or trades my hon. friend refers, but it must frequently happen that there are vacancies in some of the classified trades at or near the maximum rates which remain unfilled in consequence of the provision in the Home Dockyard Regulations that as a condition of advancement in pay there must be eligible men from among whom the selection can be made.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Government Contractors and Fair Wage Rates.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Beard more and Company, Government contractors, Glasgow, do not at their Mossend works conform to the fair wages clause by paying the recognised district rate to enginemen, crane men, boiler men, and firemen, and also to steel smelters in their employ; that the firm have refused to consider a petition submitted by the men's society requesting recognition of their society; that men have been dismissed who, through their union, requested the observance of the district rates; and what steps he proposes to take to insure the observance by this firm of the fair wages clause.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert, Devonshire, South Molton): In answer to inquiry made by the Admiralty, this firm state that the recognised district rate of wages is paid to all their workmen, that no men have been dismissed who, through their union, requested the observance of the district rates; that, as a matter of fact, no such request has ever been made to them; and that they are always willing to recognise a workmen's society, when

  1501
  such recognition is desired by a majority of the workmen employed in any branch of work.
  MR. O'GRADY: My Question has special reference to the Mossend works. I quite understand the fair rate is paid at the Glasgow works.
  *MR. LAMBERT: I will inquire further.

  Carbons for the Navy and Coast Defence.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the carbons required for the searchlights of the Royal Navy and the coast defences under its charge are British made; and if the Board of Admiralty are satisfied that an ample supply will be forthcoming in the event of war.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first part is in the affirmative. It is believed that sufficient provision is now made for the supply of carbons for searchlights, but the Admiralty are taking steps to make the position as secure as possible.

  Naval Bases and Dock Accommodation for the Fleet.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the new Home Fleet is to be nominally based upon Sheerness, and that there are neither at that port nor at Chatham any docks capable.of accommodating vessels of the "Dreadnought" or "Invincible" classes, and that these ports, as well as Portsmouth, are only accessible to battleships at certain states of the tide and for a limited portion of each day, he will state whether it is the intention of the Government to create an effective and always accessible naval base for the Home Fleet on the East Coast; and whether, with this object in view, the works at Rosyth will be pressed on with all possible speed.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first part is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I can only repeat the Answer given on 6th December that the matter is receiving careful consideration,†and plans are being prepared for the information of the Board.
  †See (4) Debates, clxvi., 1167.
  MR. JENKINSasked if the Admiralty would consider the advisability of creating such accommodation at the home dockyards as was required for the modern warship.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chatham basin is crowded with ships which have come in for Christmas, and it would take a week to get them out?
  *MR. LAMBERT: That is a piece of information rather than a Question.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it into consideration?
  *MR. LAMBERT: Yes.
  CAPTAIN HERVEY: I called attention to this question months ago.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order.

  Rosyth.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is estimated that the creation of an effective naval base at Rosyth would necessarily occupy a period of not less than seven years from the date of commencing active work thereon; and if he can state what arrangements are to be made in the meantime to provide an effective base for the Home Fleet in the neighbourhood of the East Coast.
  *MR. LAMBERT: How long it will take to complete the formation of the naval baseat Rosyth must depend on the nature of the scheme finally adopted. In the meantime, the docking facilities of the United Kingdom are sufficient for the requirements of the Home Fleet.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether there were any docking facilities available for ships of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" class within the reach of the East Coast.
  * MR. LAMBERTreplied that there was docking accommodation for the "Invincible," he believed, at Chatham. But this was a technical matter, and if the hon. Gentleman wanted accurate information he would get it for him.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the docking facilities of which he spoke were only available for about 140 days in each year.
  *MR. LAMBERT: I should like notice of that.
  MR. J. WARDasked whether there were any men at present engaged in connection with the development of Rosyth, and if so, whether these were in the direct employment of the Admiralty or in the employment of a contractor.
  *MR. LAMBERT: At the present moment there are only preliminary surveys going on at Rosyth. There is, I believe, a contractor sinking a cylinder there. There is no other work than that going on.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what progress, if any, is being made with the new naval base at Rosyth; whether the superintending engineer who has been in charge of this work from the commencement is to be shortly transferred to another post, and, if so, for what reason; and what arrangements are being made to replace him and to carry on the work.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The detailed borings are approaching completion, a trial cylinder is being sunk, and the branch railway to the site is practically completed. The superintending engineer at present employed at Rosyth will be transferred to Portsmouth on the completion of these preliminary works. There will be no need to replace him until such time as it becomes necessary actually to commence an approved scheme for the naval base, for which the detailed plans have not yet been fully prepared.
  MR. LEE: Are we to understand that this means that the works at Rosyth have been indefinitely postponed?
  *MR. LAMBERT: The hon. Gentleman must take the reply I have given as being my reply.
  MR. J. WARDasked whether there was already sufficient information from
  1504
  the boring that had taken place to justify him in saying that the Admiralty had practically decided that this was an unsuitable place for a naval base.
  *MR. LAMBERT: No, Sir, I do not think the hon. Gentleman must take that from my reply.
  Mr. E. H. LAMBasked the hon. Gentleman whether, if the Admiralty saw fit to continue the work at Rosyth, the House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter before it was actually put in hand.
  *MR. LAMBERT: Of course, on the Naval Estimates next year.

  Portsmouth Docks.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that there is at present no lock entrance to the basin and docks at Portsmouth capable of admitting vessels of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" classes, and that the basin and docks are therefore closed to vessels of this class for about eighteen hours out of every twenty-four, steps will be taken to commence without further delay the new lock entrance which the late and present Boards of Admiralty have stated to be an urgent necessity.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The question is at present occupying the attention of the Board.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: May we take it that no irrevocable step will be taken before the Naval Estimates are considered by the House?
  [The Answer was inaudible.]

  Training of Naval and Marine Officers.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the printed Report of the lecture delivered by the Director of Naval Education on the new schemes of entering and training naval and marine officers was printed and distributed to the ships at the taxpayers' expense.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The Answer is in the affirmative.

  "The Truth about the Navy."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that an anonymous book entitled "The Truth about the Navy," consisting largely of magazine articles extolling Admiralty policy, has been issued to His Majesty's ships; whether these books have been issued at the taxpayers' expense; and, if so, to what Vote they are charged.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The pamphlet in question has been issued to ships without any official approval being given to its contents. The expense will be charged to Vote 2 which bears the cost of ships' libraries.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman whether in his opinion this does not amount to a secret commission to journalists to induce them to defend the Admiralty?
  *MR. LAMBERT: That is a matter of opinion, and my opinion is of just the same value as that of my hon. friend.

  Pimlico Clothing Factory.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the employees engaged at the Pimlico Clothing Factory are to lose a day's work on 24th December, and are to be stopped one day's wages for the same; whether this will apply with equal force to the officials; and why this course is to be taken for the first time in the history of the department.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane, Haddington): Pimlico is a place from which a good I many unreliable rumours appear to emanate. The hon. Member has been misinformed, as it is not the intention to close the Royal Army Clothing Department on the 24th instant.

  Pay of Regular Officers with the Volunteers.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an order recently issued to the effect that travelling expenses incurred by staff and other officers of the Regular
  1506
  Army on full pay, including adjutants of Volunteers, when undertaking certain duties in connection with Volunteer corps, such as conducting war games, directing staff rides, and attending field days, cannot be defrayed from Army funds; and whether seeing that the expenses incurred by officers undertaking these duties will fall upon their own private purse, and will tend to discourage the officers of the Regular Army who have not private means from rendering valuable and most desirable aid in the training of Volunteers, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing this order.
  MR. HALDANE: Army Order 130 of 1906 provides for the travelling expenses of Volunteer brigadiers and brigade majors, and adjutants' travelling expenses are provided for under paragraph 477 Volunteer Regulations. These provisions cover the cases of Regular or ex-Regular officers who are primarily charged with training Volunteers, and I, therefore, see no necessity for modifying the order in question.

  Railway Extension in Nigeria.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the railway extensions in Nigeria, whether the State, the natives, or white planters will receive the enhanced value of the land through which the railway passes; and whether he will take steps, by means of valuations or otherwise, to ensure to the taxpayers of this country this enhanced value due to the expenditure of their money.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill, Manchester, N.W.): The cost of the railway extension at present authorised will be met by Southern Nigeria, so that the British taxpayer will not be affected. As regards any further extension or construction in Northern Nigeria which may be authorised in future no definite statement can be made, but the matter will not be overlooked.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Will Southern Nigeria get the benefit of the increased, land values also?
  MR. CHURCHILL: When a railway is built through land the persons owning the land, under our present dispensation, get the advantage of its enhanced value. A great proportion of the land is owned by the State, and other portions are owned by the natives. I think a very considerable proportion of the enhanced value will be secured to the State. We will make every effort to secure as much of the land as possible which is raised in value by the railway.
  MR. HIGHAMsuggested that the example set in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway should be followed, and that the land on each side of the track should become the property of the State.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think that is a very important aspect of the question. I will do my best to bring it to the notice of the Secretary of State.
  MR. WEDGWOODasked whether, even where the land was privately owned, it would not still be possible by valuation at intervals to secure for Nigeria or for this country the increased value.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think that is a very important point, and it will not be overlooked. There should be no speculative value in land in Nigeria.

  Crown Agents Office Reserve Fund.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the office reserve fund of the Crown Agents' Office on 31st December last; and, if it was anything like the sum of nearly £300,000 at which it stood on 31st December, 1902, whether, seeing that the reserve fund would suffice to meet current requirements for some years, he will suspend the system under which the funds at the disposal of the Crown Agents' Office increase in direct ratio to any increase in expenditure upon public works of the Colonies and Protectorates for which they are the commercial and financial agents in the United Kingdom, with a view to the substitution of a system under which the Crown Agents will no longer have a direct interest in such increase of expenditure in these Colonies and Protectorates, some of which
  1508
  are supported by grants-in-aid from the Treasury.
  MR. CHURCHILL: On 31st December last the nominal value of the investments held on behalf of the Crown Agent's Office reserve fund amounted to £314,023. The Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not at present in excess of actuarial requirements, but if at any future time it should show a tendency to undue increase, the question of a reduction in the charges made to the Colonies will as heretofore receive consideration. The hon. Member does not appear to have perused fully the Papers referred to in my replies to him of the 31st July and the 19th November,†as paragraphs 3 and 17 of the memorandum in Cd. 1944 show clearly that the Crown Agents have absolutely no interest,, direct or indirect, in an increase of expenditure by the Governments for which, they act.

  Congo Free State.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether having regard to the decision arrived at in the Belgian Chamber as to the annexation of the Congo Free State, and having regard to the declarations of King Leopold, in his letter of 3rd June last, claiming that in any annexation the continuance of his arrangements with existing companies and concessions should be guaranteed, he will now take steps to convene an International Conference of the Powers who have treaty rights and obligations as to the Congo, so as to ensure that any final settlement of the future of the Congo Free State by annexation by Belgium or otherwise shall be carried out under explicit conditions and guarantees to protect the natives from the cruelties of its existing administration, and to secure just administration, under some form of effective joint European control.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Runciman, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The debate in the Belgian Chamber has only just concluded, and may, apparently,, lead to Belgium taking over the Congo State in a short time. It is not desirable to prejudice the chances of this solution
  †See (4) Debates, clxii., 700; clxv., 384.

  1509
  by any other form of interference at this moment, which would have a less definite and effective result in changing or controlling the Administration of the Congo. In any case, it is not in the power of His Majesty's Government to convene a Conference. This can only be done by the consent of the other Powers interested, who would have to be consulted first. My right hon. friend would, however, remind the hon. Member of the Answer which has already been given respecting the opinion of the United States.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGasked whether the right Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had considered the fact that the proposed policy of annexation had been repeatedly postponed and frustrated, and whether the Conference which he suggested would not strengthen the hands of the Belgian Parliament in dealing with the question.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend is taking all these matters into consideration, and the statement I have made is the only one that can be made at the present moment.

  London County Council Tram Profits.
  *MR. WATERLOW: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by Mr. Hayward, Comptroller of the London County Council, before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the London County Council tramways this year, in which on Table 1 it shows, for the year 1905–6, £4,000 as the amount of income-tax on a profit of £80,000; whether there is included in this amount of profit the statutory sinking fund; whether it is customary in all reproductive municipal undertakings to assess the sinking fund as part of the profit of such undertakings; and, if so, whether in all Returns to Parliament on the financial results of such municipal undertakings, the sinking fund will be shown as part of the profits earned.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fife, E.): I have not seen the evidence of Mr. Hayward to which my hon. friend refers, but I have no doubt the facts are as represented. As regards the assessment to income-tax I under Schedule D, I have already ex-
  1510
  plained that I am not at liberty to disclose the details in any particular case. With reference to municipal undertakings of a profit earning character generally, I may say that such undertakings are by law assessable on the whole of their profits, no deduction being made for any portion of such profits which may be carried to a sinking fund. The question as to the form of Parliamentary Returns relating to municipal accounts is one for my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board rather than for myself.

  Income Tax on Interest on Foreign Securities.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if interest on Foreign Government securities, which is not payable in the United Kingdom but has to be sent abroad for payment, such as French rentes, Italian rentes, and Japanese internal loan, are not included in the schedule of foreign securities; and if, in consequence, British subjects resident abroad have a right to a refund of income-tax on such interest when paid into a banking account in the United Kingdom.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not very clear what is meant by "interest which has to be sent abroad for payment," nor am I acquainted with any "schedule of foreign securities." The liability of a British subject domiciled abroad to income-tax upon dividends on investments depends on whether the dividends are, or are not, payable in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member can give me a concrete instance of what he has in mind, I will make inquiry.

  Income-Tax—Schedules C and D.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, why the rule applicable to Schedule D of the income-tax is not also applicable to Schedule C, under the Act which provides that every provision in this Act contained and applied to the duties in any particular schedule which shall also be applicable to the duties in any other schedule, and not repugnant to the provisions for charging, ascertaining, or levying the duties in such other schedule, shall, in charging, ascertaining, and levying the same, be applied as fully and

  1511
  effectually as if the application thereof had been so expressly and particularly directed; anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
  MR. ASQUITH: The directions contained in the Act for assessment under Schedule C are comprehensive and precise, and the application to assessments under that schedule of the provisions relating to Schedule D to which the hon. Member refers, would clearly be repugnant to those directions.

  London Police Stations and the Telephone.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet decided to have all the metropolitan police stations connected with the general telephone system; and, if so, when will the arrangement come into force.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): The experiment of connecting certain police stations with the public telephone system has been tried, and has been so far successful that a considerable extension is contemplated.

  Metropolitan Police Commission.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the expense to the public of the Metropolitan Police Commission up to the present time, how much it costs the police fund per sitting, and whether he can say when the police will be able to take up their ordinary duties.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that I cannot give the particulars of expense to the police fund up to the present time. The total expense incurred has not yet been worked out, and the cost per sitting varies according to the extent of the inquiries which it may have been necessary to make, the number of officers who have to be present, the attendance of counsel, and other circumstances. I cannot say when the Commission will be able to conclude their labours, but I understand that they have not at present been able to fix dates for hearing the witnesses who wish to give evidence in favour of the police.

  Newbury Conviction under the Game Laws.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the conviction, on 6th December, by the Newbury county magistrates, of a lad called Jesse Fry, for trespassing in pursuit of game by throwing a stone on Greenham Common, on his way home from Sunday school, which is alleged to have killed a rabbit; whether he is aware that a fine of 7s. 6d. was inflicted for this act; and whether, with a view to prevent the respect for the administration of justice being lessened, he will consider the propriety of remitting the fine.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: My attention had not previously been called to this case, and I have no information beyond the newspaper cutting which my hon. friend was good enough to send to me, but I am making inquiries into it.

  Enteric at Wandsworth.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the numerous cases of enteric which have been reported in His Majesty's prison, Wandsworth, during the last few years; whether he is aware that six cases have been notified this year; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the health of the prisoners.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: It is the fact that some cases of enteric fever of a mild type have occurred at Wandsworth Prison during the past few years, and that during the present year there have been six such cases. All possible precautions were taken on each occasion to prevent a spread of the disease. Inquiry showed that some of the cases were imported from outside, as must occasionally occur in prisons with a large floating population. As, however, there was reason to believe that certain of the later cases originated within the prison, a thorough investigation into their origin has been made, with the result that steps are now being taken to remedy certain sanitary defects which have been discovered, and to reconstruct the old drainage of the prison.

  Motor Bus Drivers' Pay.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is becoming a common practice to compel motor 'bus drivers to drive their 'buses on the piecework system, by which they must complete a certain mileage to secure a day's pay, varying from thirteen to nineteen hours per day (often without intervals for food); and whether, in the interest of public safety, he will, at an early date, introduce legislation that would secure a maximum working day at this work of nine hours per day.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Motor 'bus drivers in some instances receive their full rate of pay for the performance of a fixed number of journeys per day. For lost journeys some deduction is made. I understand that the hours of work of motor drivers average about nine and a half daily, except in the case of the Vanguard Company, who on one route employ their drivers for thirteen and a half hours a day, giving them one day's rest in three. The average day on this route is thus one of nine hours.

  Horn sea Sea Defences.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the town of Hastings has, during the present year, been granted borrowing powers for a period of fifteen years for sea-defence groynes of a light character, he will assist the town of Horn sea, East Yorkshire, by granting them similar powers for groynes of a substantial and expensive character.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea): I do not find that the Local Government Board have sanctioned any loans for groynes at Hastings during the present year. They have recently sanctioned a loan for limber groynes at Horn sea, and in accordance with their usual practice in the case of groynes of this character the period for the repayment of the loan has been limited to ten years.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: If I can prove the fact as regards Hastings, will
  1514
  the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision as regards Horn sea?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I shall be glad to hear anything which will enable me favourably to consider the Horn sea case. I believe at Hastings the loan was for a substantial concrete groyne.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: My information is different.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am confirmed in my view in another quarter of the House.

  Tuberculosis in Pigs.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that in the United States of America pig carcases intended for export and which, on post mortem examination, are found to be affected with tuberculosis, are adjudicated by the inspectors by a much more lax standard than that recommended by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis 1898, whose findings have been issued by his Department for the guidance of Home inspectors; and will he take the necessary steps to ensure that all pig carcases slaughtered at home, or abroad if brought to this country, are examined in accordance with the requirements contained in the recommendations of the said Royal Commission.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware that the carcases of pigs intended for export from the United States are not dealt with on the standard recommended by the Royal Commission of 1898. I do not think that pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis which, is now sitting, I could take action of the kind contemplated in the last part of the Question.

  The Norwich Unemployed.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that 962 unemployed persons have registered with the Norwich Distress Committee, of whom 692 are qualified for assistance under the Unemployed Workmen Act; that these figures do not fully represent the number of unemployed

  1515
  within the city; that work can be provided by the distress committee in co-operation with the corporation provided funds are available; whether he has received an application for a share of the grant of £200,000; if so, is he acceding to such request; and will he state what sum is to be thus allocated.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts stated. The distress committee have applied for a share of the Grant, and I have asked for certain information which is necessary to enable me to deal with the application. As soon as this is furnished I hope to come to a decision with regard to it.

  Hatherleigh Sub-Postmaster.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that the post office at Hatherleigh, Devon, has recently been moved into a building occupied by a political club; that the postmaster is an official of the said club, and that there is direct communication between the premises of the club and the post office, and that the postmaster is authorised to deal in liquor; and whether he will endeavour to find other premises for this post office.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The post office at Hatherleigh is not in a building occupied by a political club; the sub-postmaster is not an official of such a club, and there is no direct communication between the post office and the club. The sub-postmaster is a chemist and holds a licence for the sale of wines and spirits in sealed bottles only. I do not consider this sufficient reason for moving the post office to other premises.

  Trade Unions and the Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to inform the House whether trade unions are entitled to deposit their funds in the Post Office Savings Bank; and whether such funds are applicable for the purpose of provident benefits or for the other objects of a union.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that I am now advised that trade unions are entitled under the Savings Bank Acts to deposit their funds in the Post Office Savings Bank without reference to the specific purpose for which such funds are applied. The deposit will be made under the same regulations as to amount as in the case of other charitable and provident societies, that is to say, deposits can be made up to £100 in the year and £300 in the whole with the consent of the Postmaster-General; and to an unlimited amount with the consent of the National Debt Commissioners. On the latter point I am communicating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Gwespyr School Accommodation.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the inquiry which was held at Gwespyr, Flintshire, on Saturday, the 15th instant, with reference to the provision of school accommodation in that district; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Education to publish the shorthand notes of the evidence given at the inquiry.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. (Birrell, Bristol, N.): My attention did not need to be called to the inquiry referred to. I have been fully familiar with the case for a long time past, and I took special care as to the holding of an inquiry on Saturday last. I will see that the Report of the inquiry which will be furnished to the Board by the Commissioner in accordance with Section 73 of the Act of 1870 is laid on the Table of the House as soon as a judicial decision is arrived at. The evidence given before the Commissioner, especially as to the evictions, has been very fully reported in the local and other newspapers.

  Publication of New Acts of Parliament.
  MR. PICKERSG1LL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the interval which elapses between the date when a Public Bill in Parliament receives the Royal Assent and the date when copies of the Act of Parliament are obtainable by the public;

  1517
  whether he is aware that copies of The Marriage with Foreigners Act, 1906, which received the Royal Assent on the 29th November, cannot yet be obtained, and that copies of the 23 Acts which ware passed on the 4th August were not obtainable until on or about the 27th August; and whether, having regard to the inconvenience which is caused by this delay, he will communicate with the King's printer with a view to secure earlier publication.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TEEASUEY (Mr. McKenna, Monmouthshire, N.): As soon as I saw my hon. friend's Question on the notice Paper, I made inquiries into the matter, and I am causing steps to be taken by which I hope to effect a considerable improvement.

  Royal Chapel) Holyrood.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can give the House any information with regard to the proposed restoration of the Royal Chapel, Holyrood, or whether the chapel will in any case be put in repair to preserve as much as possible of the old building.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale): I understand that the trustees under Lord Leven's will have declined to act in the matter of the Holyrood bequest, and the legacy therefore falls into the residue of the estate. I am glad to know that Mr. Lethaby, the architect employed by the trustees to examine the building, expressed his opinion that the structure has been most carefully and suitably repaired and preserved by the Office of Works.

  South American and Antwerp Cattle Trade.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if any precautious are taken by the Board of Agriculture to ensure that ships engaged in the cattle trade between South American ports and Antwerp shall not be allowed to enter British ports without disinfection.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Steps are taken to prevent the landing in Great Britain of manure, fodder, and cattle fittings from vessels engaged in the trade to which my hon. friend refers. The vessels themselves are disinfected very thoroughly by the Belgian authorities, and no special action; in this direction has hitherto been considered necessary in this country. We shall, however, be glad to make further inquiry into the matter, the result of which I will communicate to my hon. friend.

  Instruction in the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what action, if any, will be taken by the Commissioners of National Education on the proposals for the proper teaching of Irish put forward by the Gaelic League and submitted to the Commissioners several weeks ago.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Bryce, Aberdeen, S.): The Irish Government and the Commissioners of National Education are still in correspondence on this subject, and I am not yet in a position to state what action the Commissioners may take.

  Crossmolina Road, Greenaum.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Ballina District Council have refused to pass the estimate for the repair and maintenance of a road leading from the Crossmolina Road at Greenaum to the end of the road at Slievenagark, on the ground that it was used by the police who were protecting John Haire, the tenant of the Crannagh farm, who has been denounced by the United Irish League; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take.
  MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board have ascertained from the clerk of the Ballina Rural District Council that an application for the repair of the road mentioned in the Question was rejected by the council at their last quarterly meeting, but upon what grounds is unknown to the Board. The Board can

  1519
  only act in a matter of this kind upon complaint being made by the county council that the district council have failed to keep this public road in good repair.

  Police Protection in County Galway.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether police protection is still afforded to Mr. Shaw-Tener, Mr. Frank Shawe-Taylor, and Mr. Perrse, in county Galway; and whether his official information shows that their lives would be safe if the guards were withdrawn.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As respects the second part of the Question, that is a matter of opinion. The police, however, consider it proper to afford protection to the gentlemen named.
  MR. REDDY: Would the conduct of Shaw-Tener and Frank Shawe-Taylor be tolerated in any other civilised country?
  MR. BRYCE: That Question does not appear to arise out of the Answer I have given.

  Grading of Butter.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the cost to the New Zealand Government of grading butter amounts, approximately, to only 1½d. per cwt; and whether, in view of the fact that since the institution of grading in that country the butter has attained a higher standard of value, which is represented by many shillings per cwt., and that the percentage of first-grade butter has risen in consequence from 93 per cent. in 1896 to 97·85 per cent. in 1906, he will state why the Irish Department of Agriculture do not take steps to institute a similar system in Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture are not aware of the precise cost to the New Zealand Government of grading butter. They are, however, inclined to believe that the improvement
  1520
  in New Zealand butter is due to the adoption of modern methods of manufacture resulting from expert instruction in dairying, rather than to the system of grading. The Department do not consider that the system of grading suitable for New Zealand could be satisfactorily applied to Ireland, owing to the great difference between the conditions of trade in the two countries. Moreover, the Department have no legal power to enforce a system of grading.
  MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures quoted were given by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies last week? Does he consider that satisfactory?
  MR. BRYCE: I gather from the Answer that the Department of Agriculture do not think it makes any difference.
  MR. BOLAND: But if the Department are not satisfied with the New Zealand figures, will they inquire as to those for Queensland?
  MR. BRYCE: It is not a question of figures at all. It is a question of difference between the butters which makes the practice of New Zealand inapplicable to Ireland.
  MR. GWYNN: What is the difference?
  MR. BRYCE: I think that is a Question of which notice should be given.

  Kells Fishing Industry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to comply with the request of the fishermen at Kells, county Kerry, that a suitable pier should be provided at that important fishing centre.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that when the Congested Districts Board decided some years ago to build a pier at Roads, which is about two miles from Kells, they duly considered the claims of both places and selected Roads. The Board are not prepared to construct another pier at Kells.

  Mrs. Scully's Tullarvan Estate.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if negotiations for the purchase of the Tullarvan, county Kilkenny, estate of untenanted land of Mrs. E. A. Scully have been renewed; if so, what progress, if any, has been made; and if, owing to the want of untenanted land in that district for the purpose of supplying evicted tenants with holdings, he will use his influence so that the estate may be purchased as soon as possible.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that negotiations for the purchase by them of the estate mentioned have been renewed, and they expect to arrive at a decision in the matter, and to communicate that decision to the owner, in the course of this week.

  Cornamona School Teacher.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what action was taken by the Commissioners of National Education in the case of Mr. Michael O'Malley, principal teacher in Cornamona school, county Galway; what was the allegation against him; whether he resigned his appointment; whether he has since been reinstated; and, if so, whether the National Commissioners have sanctioned his reinstatement.
  MR. BRYCE: I informed the hon. Member on 11th July†last that Mr. O'Malley had resigned his position as principal teacher in Cornamona school. The allegation against him was that he had furnished a certificate of birth which in reality related to another person of the same name. The Commissioners now inform me that Mr. O'Malley subsequently withdrew his resignation, and the manager accepted the withdrawal and asked for the Commissioners' approval. The Commissioners informed the manager that having regard to his local knowledge, they considered the matter was one for his own decision.

  Irish School Teachers Special Grants.
  MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
  †See (4) Debates, clx., 888.
  1522
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount which would be necessary to cover a special grant of £10 per annum to national school teachers in Ireland who have already taken out. University degrees; and whether, if such a sum does not exceed £1,000 per annum, he will take steps to place this amount on the Estimates, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, of National Education of last year.
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the cost of giving £10 a year to existing teachers who are University graduates would be about £1,000 a year, but the Commissioners estimate that if the system were applied to teachers who may take degrees in future the cost would ultimately reach £10,000 a year. I do not express any opinion on this particular proposal, as it would need to be weighed whether so considerable an addition to the funds for primary education might not be better employed in some other direction. At the same time, I may say that the advantage of inducing teachers to take University degrees has been shown by the example of Scotland to be, very great indeed.
  MR. SLOAN: Is a proposal for increasing the salaries of the national school teachers under consideration?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, it is now being considered by the Irish Government.

  Irish Intermediate Education Board Rules.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the proposed new rules of the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) for 1908, is included one which requires that candidates should pass in two languages, exclusive of English, in order to qualify; is he aware that, in reply to the Commissioners'circular inviting the opinion of educational bodies and teachers as to the advisability of making such a regulation, the great majority of the replies were entirely opposed to it; and whether these facts will be taken into consideration before the sanction of the House is given to the new rules.
  MR. BRYCE: The rule quoted in the Question is subject to important qualifications, viz.:—Only one language other than English is required in the preparatory grade; students of the three upper grades who have already passed with one language are not required to pass in more than one unless the previous pass was in the preparatory grade; girls are allowed to pass under conditions that do not require them to take two languages. The Board of Intermediate Education obtained the opinions of schoolmasters on the desirability and feasibility of the change, and, though the majority thought it undesirable, there were very few who thought it would not be possible to teach two languages. The teachers' opinions and all the other circumstances of the case were fully considered when the rules were being framed.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the leaving out of the date deprive this House of the right of objecting to this programme in any future year.
  MR. BRYCE: I think not.

  Earl of Annesley's Fishing Rights.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether having regard to the fact that the Earl of Annesley began only last year to pay rates on his alleged rights to the fishing at Shimna River, Newcastle, he can say what steps the Department of Agriculture intends to take to investigate Lord Annesley's claim or to assert the public rights.
  MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture do not propose to take any steps to investigate Lord Annesley's claim to the fishery in question, as they have no power to do so. The matter is one which can only be decided by a court of law. The Department will, however, notify to the local Board of Conservators, who are primarily responsible for the enforcement of the fishery laws in the district, that if they consider that there is a prima facie case against Lord Annesley they should institute proceedings before the magistrates and have the matter tested.

  Mr. Orpen's Glenflesk Estate, Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estate of the representatives of R. D. Orpen, of Glenflesk, county Kerry, is before them for sale; if not, whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that the landlord's representatives are willing to sell and the tenants to buy at reasonable prices; whether Messrs. Hogan and Sons, solicitors and land agents, Dublin, have threatened to issue writs against the tenants in order to force them into improper purchases; and whether the Estates Commissioners can take any steps to negotiate a sale or to prevent the tenants being unfairly treated in connection with sale negotiations.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate in question are pending before them, and they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. The Commissioners, however, will be prepared to consider whether they can usefully offer their services as conciliators in pursuance of No. VIII. of the Lord-Lieutenant's Regulations, if any application to that effect should be made to them by the persons interested.
  MR. MURPHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Estates Commissioners will act without receiving any further representations?
  MR. BRYCE: My impression is that it is not competent for them to act unless they receive representations.
  MR. MURPHY: On behalf of the tenants?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes.

  Committals of Galway Children to Industrial Schools.
  MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why three children, John, Margaret, and Brigid Schofield, who were committed to industrial schools at the Galway Petty Sessions on 5th November, have been discharged by his order from the school without reasons given and without communication to the magistrates; and what provision is to be

  1525
  made for these children, whose mother is dead and whose father, being a fisherman, is absent for considerable stretches of time.
  MR. BRYCE: In the cases referred to I was advised that the evidence upon which the children were committed to industrial schools did not justify the orders made by the magistrates, and I had therefore no alternative but to direct the discharge of the children. There is nothing to prevent the children from being again brought up and committed to industrial schools, provided that sufficient evidence is available, but it is of course the father's primary duty to provide for the care of his children.
  MR. GWYNN: I sit possible to find out by whom the information was supplied?
  MR. BRYCE: It was supplied by my usual legal advisers, whom I consulted on the question of law.
  MR. SLOAN: To what school were the children committed?
  MR. BRYCE: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. GWYNN: Am I to understand that the order was discharged on a purely.technical point?
  MR. BRYCE: It was a point of substance rather than a technicality. The magistrate had no power to make the order unless on adequate evidence, and I am advised there was no such evidence; therefore the order could not be enforced.

  Mr. John Haire, of Ardagh.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Swinford Board of Guardians have unanimously adopted a resolution sent to them by the Ballina District Council (county Mayo) in which John Haire, of Ardagh, was specifically denounced as a renegade, a Judas, and a traitor, and that the acting clerk of the Swinford Guardians wrote informing the Ballina Board that this resolution had been passed; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I was not aware of this resolution, but find that one containing the words quoted, apparently cumulative in their effect, was in fact passed. It appears that the district council regard the conduct of this gentleman as having, in their own words, no parallel in history, but it does not appear that he has suffered in any respect, so the matter is not one which calls for the interference of the Government.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think language of this kind conducive to peacable government in Ireland?
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think it reflects credit on the council.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: A few weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman said he had no knowledge of this matter.
  MR. BRYCE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest my Answer was incorrect?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: No, Sir.
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member can hardly suppose I have time to peruse all the resolutions passed by the local bodies in Ireland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Did not the hon. Member himself use on one occasion the same language regarding Lord Pirie?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: No, I did not.

  Irish Loan Society Accounts.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at Sixmilecross Petty Sessions, county Tyrone, on the 6th instant, Mr. R. S. Clements, J.P., a clerk and debenture holder in the Killadroy Loan Fund Society, adjudicated in claims advanced by his cousin, Mr. R. O. Clements, clerk of Killadroy, Beragh, and Omagh Loan Fund Societies; whether he is aware that the accounts on these claims were not made out in the manner provided by the Charitable Loans Act of this year; and whether, having regard to the pledge given during the passing of the Act that any justice of the peace being also a debenture holder or official who would

  1527
  adjudicate in such cases would be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, he can state what action has been taken in the Clements' case; whether he will call for all the papers in order to see whether any prosecution will lie against either of these gentlemen; and whether he will, meantime, take steps to have the decrees quashed.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Cherry, Liverpool, Exchange): I am informed that Mr. R. S. Clements, J. P., is not a clerk or debenture holder in any loan fund society, and; has had no connection with any such society for some years past. I am not aware whether this magistrate adjudicated in the cases of the loan fund society over which his cousin, Mr. R. O. Clements, is receiver; but if such were the case, I am not prepared to say that this action was irregular. The loan fund board inform me that they are not aware whether the accounts referred to were prepared in the manner provided by the Charitable Loans Act of this year; but the Board are aware that the receiver was advised by senior counsel as to the manner in which the accounts should be prepared. No necessity, therefore, appears to exist for considering the matters raised in the concluding parts of the Question, but I desire to say that I am not aware that any such pledge as is mentioned in the Question was given when the Charitable Loans Fund Bill was passing through Parliament.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Bill was before the House I moved an Amendment providing that no justice of the peace should adjudicate in these cases if he were a debenture holder. And has he not said that a magistrate adjudicating under such circumstances would be breaking the law? Will he draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this case?
  MR. CHERRY: I have no intention; of doing that.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Who informed the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Clements was not a debenture holder in this society?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot answer that Question.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I can tell you who he is.

  The Shaftesbury Estate, Belfast.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Estates Commissioners to the effect that, before sanctioning the sale of the Shaftesbury estate, near Belfast, the Treasury should be afforded an opportunity of appearing by counsel before, them; whether he is aware that the total purchase money agreed by the tenants to be paid would, if invested at 3 per cent., yield 91 per cent. of the gross rental, or more than the net rental, at 3¾ per cent. would yield 109 per cent. of the gross rental, and at 4 per cent. no less than 116 per cent. of the gross rental, or 36 per cent. more than the present net income from the property, besides improving the security; whether the Treasury will represent to the Commissioners that in these figures the landlord has sufficient inducement to sell without also paying to him a bonus at the cost of the Irish taxpayers; and whether the Treasury will advise the Commissioners not to declare the property an estate, but to leave it to be dealt with under one of the previous Purchase Acts and thus save the bonus.
  MR. McKENNA: I have seen an account of this case in the newspapers, but no official Report has reached me on the subject. I am, however, making, inquiries.

  Tenants' Improvements.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in any forthcoming Government Bill dealing with the land question in England and Wales, he will include powers for town tenants to obtain compensation for improvements, and, in the case of long leaseholds, such powers as will enable leaseholders to acquire the freehold upon reasonable terms.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Stirling Burghs): I think it is premature to make any statement on this subject. Our general views are well known.

  Discharges from the Crewe Railway Works.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that over 100 men, many of whom had been employed in the works for periods varying from forty to fifty years, have been dismissed from the Crewe shops of the London and North Western Railway Company; that the mayor of Crewe has issued an appeal on their behalf stating that, owing to their age, they will have great difficulty in procuring other employment; and whether the Government will, on an early day, either by providing old age pensions or some form of employment, make provison for such cases.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no official knowledge of the circumstances, but I have no doubt that the facts are us stated by the hon. Member. I am afraid what has happened affords only one instance the more of the urgent need for some system of old age pensions.

  Gwespyr Education Inquiry.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that it was stated in evidence at the inquiry held on the 15th inst. at Gwespyr, Flintshire, that Sir Pyers Mostyn had caused notice to quit to be served upon thirteen of his tenants for no reason other than that the said tenants had supported the establishment of an undenominational school in the district; and whether the Government propose to take any and what steps by legislation or otherwise, to protect tenants against such eviction.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say anything about this matter at present. The Commissioner will make a formal report to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education whose duty it will be to come to a decision in regard to it. It would be improper for me under these circumstances to offer an opinion upon a case in process of judicial determination.

  The French Separation Law.
  MR. McKEAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is as
  1530
  follows:—If his attention has been called to the recent violent expulsion from France of Monsignor Montagnine, Auditor of the Papal Nuncio to that country, to the seizure of his private papers and correspondence and to the publication of their contents; also if the right hon. Gentleman has been made aware of other similar proceedings connected with the Separation Law of 1905 involving the suppression of public worship as practised by the great majority of the French people; to the prosecution of numbers of French ecclesiastics for merely performing their ordinary duties, duties which are allowed to be discharged in this and every other free country unhampered by any artificial and irritating restraints; and whether under such circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will advise his Majesty, King Edward, to annul and dissolve the alliance between this country and France generally known as the entente cordiale unless and until the French Government undertakes to respect the rights of conscience on the part of, and the rights of property belonging to, French citizens? [Laughter]—"Loud, laughter bespeaks the vacant mind."
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Seeing that the alleged facts complained of are not matters for which the Prime Minister is in any way responsible, and seeing that the Question seems to be couched in the form rather of an argumentative speech, I am of opinion that such a Question should not be asked unless it is submitted at the Table.
  MR. McKEAN: I have submitted the Question to the Prime Minister, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman would answer it. If he is not responsible for the facts, he is responsible for the Government of this country.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have ruled that the Question cannot be put.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Eighth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. WALTER LONGasked as to the business for that day, and suggested that as the Lords' Amendments

1531
to the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill had not been circulated the discussion thereon should be postponed.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid they were living from hand to mouth, as it were, their daily food being mostly Amendments of the House of Lords, which came to them in courses which they could not anticipate with certainty. They imagined, however, that to-morrow they would be in a position to consider the Lords' Amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Bill. The Report of the Public Trustee Bill would also be put down.
MR. BRYCEexplained that the copies of the Lords' Amendments to the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill were expected very shortly, and he suggested the House should proceed with the consideration of the first Amendment, which, being of some importance, as it struck out the retrospective character of the Bill, would take some time.
MR. STANLEY WILSONurged that the Public Trustee Bill should be proceeded with first.
MR. JOHN REDMONDobjected to that very strongly as several of his colleagues had come over from Ireland to discuss this matter, and one had to return that night.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that under the circumstances he was willing to act on the suggestion of the Chief Secretary.

TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order read for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Bryce, Aberdeen, S.)said these Amendments divided themselves into three classes. The first were Amendments of a purely drafting character which should not cause any trouble. They were improvements to the Bill and would make it free from ambiguity. The second class of Amendments were machinery. When the Bill left the House there were certain parts which did not contain all the provisions for carrying out the main points of the Bill in detail, and certain provisions
1532
in the nature of machinery were introduced in the House of Lords. These Amendments, taking them all in all, were of importance to the Bill, and would enable it to work with the least possible friction. The third class were Amendments of substance, and he was sorry to say that with scarcely any exception they seemed to him to be regrettable and unfortunate. They were Amendments which would impair the operation of the Bill. He did not think it possible, if the House adhered to the views it expressed on Report, to accept those Amendments en bloc. Some of them would be sufficient to defeat the main object of the Bill. The Government, in another place, did their best to resist the Amendments, and anything that was accepted was agreed to only for the sake of averting greater evil, and was in the nature of a compromise. The Government had done their best to save some of the vital features of the Bill, and if they had not succeeded it had not been the fault of those who represented them in the House of Lords. They had now to consider how they were to deal with the Bill in the form in which it had come back. They were very anxious that the Bill should be passed and that a measure of justice, so long hoped for and so long delayed, should, if possible, be given to the people of Ireland. They, therefore, reluctantly proposed to ask the House to agree to two Amendments which did not commend themselves to their minds and which they believed would impair the value of the Bill. One of these Amendments directed the court to take an account of the time during which the improvements had been enjoyed by the tenant, an Amendment, which, if it were not superfluous, was certainly deleterious. The other was the recasting of the clause providing compensation for disturbance, which had been put in a different form and one likely to work less equitably than that in which it left the House of Commons. These Amendments he should ask the House to accept if they could. There were two other Amendments which he could not ask the House to accept which appeared to strike at the very root of the Bill—one applying to Clause 1 and one to Clause 6, which in the view of the Government destroyed the application of the leading fundamental principles of the Bill. One declared that the operation of the Bill

1533
should not be retrospective, that the provision for making compensation for improvements should not apply to any improvement made before the passing of the Act. To accept that would destroy all the interest of existing tenants in the improvements which they had executed, and it would baulk the hopes which they had been led to entertain that their improvement would not have been made for the landlord's benefit alone, but that the landlord would be required to give compensation for them. That proposition was affirmed by large majorities in the House of Commons, and in respect of the Amendment which had been made he was obliged to ask the House to disagree with the House of Lords. The Amendment to Clause 6 would have the effect of destroying the value of that clause or at any rate of greatly reducing its value. It proposed to limit the amount to be received in respect of compensation for disturbance to three years rent of the premises; where the rent was low that might be altogether inadequate compensation to the tenant for the loss and expense he incurred in having to quit. On these two vital Amendments the Government proposed to stand firm, and having said that he would have no more to say before they approached the consideration of each Amendment in detail.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered."
MR. JOHN REDMONDthought the course the right hon. Gentleman had taken in giving the House a general outline of what the Government intended to do was a most convenient one. It would also be convenient if he were to tell the House in a few words what the Irish Party thought about the matter. Of course the Bill was now a Government measure and had been largely recast by the Government, but the fact still remained that it had been introduced by a private Member. The view the Party took was that the Bill as it had come back from the Lords was absolutely worthless. If it was a question of accepting the measure with the Lords' Amendments or of rejecting it, he had no hesitation in saying that he and h is friends would prefer that the Bill should be lost. The Government by
1534
their conduct of the Bill in the Common went upon the lines of accepting as far as possible suggestions and Amendments from Members upon his own side of the House; but they had also accepted and put in the Bill several Amendments before it went to the Lords which did not commend themselves to him and his colleagues. They thought, however, under the circumstances it would be wise for his friends and himself to give the Government a free hand up to a certain point. In the House of Lords the Government proceeded in the same way, and accepted a number of Amendments which he thought were of a most injurious character. The Chief Secretary had told the House that the Government only accepted such Amendments because they were forced to do so in order to stave off other proposals of a still more injurious character. He recognised the difficulty, but he wished to emphasise the fact that the Government had accepted from the opponents of the Bill in both Houses a very large number of Amendments which he and his friends considered injurious. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to accept a still greater number of Amendments. He did not believe there was a single Amendment made in the other House which was not restrictive in its character and harmful in its effect, and if he had his way he would not accept a single one of them. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was proposing another course. He proposed to accept Amendments of a most serious nature in order to save the general principles of the Bill. He proposed to accept an Amendment providing that the Court should take into consideration the number of years during which the improvement had been enjoyed by the tenant. The National Members considered that was a very serious Amendment and one for which they could not be responsible. Again, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to accept a new clause providing compensation for disturbance which had been inserted in lieu of the clause agreed to by the House of Commons.
MR. BRYCE: Subject to the particular point which I have mentioned.
MR. JOHN REDMONDquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's interruption. Continuing, he said these

1535
were very serious and far-reaching concessions. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman hoped that by going to the length he had done, he would disarm the hostility of the House of Lords and carry the remnant of the Bill through. That was a matter the right hon. Gentleman must decide for himself, but it such was really his thought he (Mr. Redmond) and his friends would not stand in his way. Even with reference to the Amendments which seemed most objectionable they were prepared not to stand in the way. There were, however, two other Amendments made by the House of Lords of such a character that they could not have been entertained or even listened to for one moment in the lower House or by his Party. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to stand firm in regard to those. The first Amendment, viz., that to Clause 1, took away the retrospective character of the Bill, and if that were agreed to the Bill might just as well be thrown into the waste-paper basket. Without it the Bill would not only be worthless, "but its passage would do a distinct injury to town tenants in Ireland. He presumed he might take the statement of the Chief Secretary on that point to amount to this—that the Government agreed with the view that he was putting forward, and that they would not in any circumstances accept that Amendment. He had therefore come to the conclusion that on that point there was no difference between hon. Members from Ireland and the Government, and that if it came to a question of taking the Bill with that Amendment in it or dropping it, they would drop it. He understood that the Government had agreed to accept the new compensation for disturbance clause instead of their own one, but subject to a reservation. The new clause of the Lords had by the last two or three words been made absolutely ridiculous and futile, because the last words of the clause now were, "provided that such compensation for goodwill shall in no case exceed three years rent of a holding." By what extraordinary confusion of mind did any noble Lord come to the conclusion that rent was a measure of the value of goodwill? Anyone who was acquainted with the towns of Ireland—he supposed the same
1536
was true in this country and in Scotland—would know that the rent of premises in those cases was very low and that there were many business establishments in small towns in Ireland where the rent might be only £10 or £20. In. the case of a big country shop the rent might be £30 a year. But the man who by his own capital and enterprise had built a business in those places and had created a valuable goodwill might be making a profit of £200, £300, or £500 a year. Under the operation of this Bill as amended by the Lords if the Landlord unreasonably and without good and Sufficient cause evicted such a man from the premises he would be able to get by way of compensation for disturbance for his goodwill only three years rent, say £30, £40, or £50, while his profits arising from the goodwill probably amounted to hundreds per annum. He gathered from the Chief Secretary that upon this point he was in agreement with the Nationalist Members
MR. BRYCE: Hear, hear.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he gathered, also that if the Lords insisted upon that Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would not give way in another place, but would rather sacrifice the Bill than allow it to be so mutilated. His chief difference with the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this, that he, apparently in the guilelessness and goodness of his nature thought it was possible at the eleventh hour to induce noble Lords to act a little reasonably and to take those obnoxious Amendments out of the Bill. He was afraid noble Lords would do nothing of the kind. he thought all the right hon. Gentleman's concessions on other points, instead of inducing them to be reasonable would have a contrary effect, that the more he conceded to them by accepting their other Amendments the less likely they were to be reasonable. That remained, however, to be put to the test, and he would not stand in the way of the test being applied. And he would end as he began, by saying that if either one or other of the two defects to which he had alluded remained in the Bill he certainly would use every exertion he could to prevent its passing into law.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the course taken by the Chief Secretary marked the difficulty they were in through not having in their hands earlier a copy of the Amendments. A copy had just that moment reached him, and the House had listened to two important speeches—one from the Chief Secretary and the other from the Leader of the Nationalist. Party—both of whom spoke with probably equal authority on this subject. Not having the advantages of the Amendments before them they must submit to the difficulty and do the best they could. The Chief Secretary had dwelt on the Amendments generally. He himself only proposed to say a word on one or two of them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was a Bill of urgent and vital importance. That being the case it was a little remarkable that it was a Bill brought in by a private Member and only adopted by the Government at the last moment. The Government themselves had been compelled to amend it considerably both in this House and in the other. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Bill was unlike any other Irish Bill connected with the land question. The whole method, principle, and practice of the Bill was applicable to the same class of property in England. Therefore it was obvious that hon. Members representing English constituencies must think it their business to take a very considerable interest in the debates on the Amendments. As to the retrospective character of the Bill, no doubt there was the strongest feeling among those who were not Irish Members on the Opposition side of the House that the proposal was a very dangerous precedent. The Irish land legislation which had hitherto been passed was no precedent for this particular case, and obviously it could not be a precedent for legislation of a similar character in England because there was no analogy between the conditions in the two countries in regard to agricultural tenancies. Although the circumstances in regard to town tenancies in England and Ireland were not identical, undoubtedly if the proposals contained in this Bill were passed with the consent of the official Opposition it would be held
1538
afterwards as a precedent justifying similar action in regard to England, and that would interfere with the freedom of action of his hon. friends. Under these circumstances, while there would be no desire to unduly prolong discussion or to interfere with the passage of the Bill, the Chief Secretary must expect that some of his hon. friends would look at the retrospective aspect of the question not from the Irish point of view but from the point of view of legislation which might afterwards be proposed in regard to the rest of the country.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act,"read a second time.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Cherry, Liverpool Exchange)moved that the House disagree in said Amendment. As the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had stated, this was a vital Amendment. Every Member from Ireland knew that it affected thousands of owners of property. There were at the present day in all the towns of Ireland hundreds of cases where the tenants had put up valuable improvements upon the land which they held as tenants from year to year or on short term leases. That property was legally and technically the landlords' property; He thought the House would agree with him when he said that in equity and fair play it was the tenants' property.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: No.
MR. CHERRYsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London disagreed but he thought that the vast majority of the House would agree. It had been said that the Government had no precedent for the course they were taking in this case. There were only two instances in which Parliament had dealt with the question of compensation for improvements, and in both cases the Acts had been made retrospective. The first was the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870 dealing with agricultural improvements.

1539
That Act dealt with improvements made before its passing, and he did not think there was one person in Ireland now who would say that the Act was unjust in giving to the tenant the value of the improvements he had made. That Act had been in operation for thirty-five years, and since then Parliament, instead of restricting its retrospective operation had extended it. Hon. Members were aware that by the legislation for fixing fair rents passed in 1881, 1887 and 1896, the principle of compensation for improvements was extended, and the tenant was declared to be exempt from rent in respect of improvements. When in 1896 an alteration was made in the law of compensation for improvements the right which was limited to some extent in 1870 was made more general. As to English legislation, in 1883 the Agricultural Holdings Act extended in a certain degree the right of compensation which had been given thirteen years before. That Act was also retrospective. It seemed therefore that there was ample reason for adhering to a principle which was very valuable. The Government had introduced into this Bill qualifications and provisos in favour of the landlord which were not in the Act of 1870 which would prevent a scintilla of injustice being done to him. The first [sub-section of the second clause distinctly provided that the tenant of a holding was not to be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement if the landlord had made a reasonable offer to continue the tenancy. The result was that no landlord could be compelled to pay for improvements against his will. If he had to pay it would be his own voluntary act, and if the tenant remained in occupation he would not be asked to pay a penny. The Bill distinctly provided that the landlord was only to be asked to pay for the actual value of what he got. It was necessary that the tenant should show that the letting value of the holding had been increased by the improvement. The Government proposed to accept the Amendment providing that the amount of the compensation was never to exceed the capitalised value of the increase in the letting value. Surely if the landlord in future was to get the increase in the rent in respect of money expended by the
1540
tenant there was and could be no injustice in asking him to pay for what he had actually received in value. He did not believe there were many landlords in Ireland who were not anxious to compensate their tenants for improvements made by them which increased the letting value of their property, or who desired to take for nothing the property created by another. Two years ago a friend of his, a landlord, an Orangeman, and a strong Conservative, owned the whole property in a village, including a shop. The rent of that shop was £1 year. He asked his friend on what terms the shop was held, and he replied, from year to year. The tenant had made considerable improvements on the premises and added a building to them. He said to his friend, "Why don't you take the shop from the tenant who only pays £1 a year rent, when you could get £30 or £40 a year from somebody else?" The answer at once was—"Surely, no honest man would do that." He thought there were a great number of landlords in Ireland who would agree with that gentleman. All that this Bill provided was that no landlord, good or bad, should be allowed to appropriate, without compensation, the improvements made by his tenant. He maintained that the Lords' Amendment was an unreasonable one, and he asked the House to disagree with it.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Cherry.)
SIR E. CARSONsaid he could assure the House that he was not going over the old controversial grounds at considerable length; but he wished to deal with some of the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. This was really the one substantial Amendment which was made in another place. [Nationalist cries of "No."] So far as he could see no substantial alteration had been affecting the principle of the Bill at all. What he would like to point out was that the Bill as amended by the Lords would alter the relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland even as

1541
regarded existing contracts. The Amendment they proposed in the House of Commons was that existing contracts should be exempted from the Bill. The extent to which the House of Lords had gone was not to exempt existing contracts. They allowed existing contracts to be affected by the Bill, but what they said was that those contracts were only affected in relation to improvements made after the passing of the Bill. He submitted that the Bill was on the face of it an absolute justification of what the House of Lords had done as regards improvements made before the passing of the Bill. The whole Bill was taken up with safeguards which the House of Commons had thought necessary to impose with regard to claims for improvements made after the passing of the Bill. Why were these safeguards put into the Bill? Because the House thought it would be unfair that the landlord should be mulcted as regards improvements unless he had inserted safeguards taking care that in reality he was not being called upon to pay money in respect of improvements not made by the existing tenant. If all these safeguards were necessary as regards present improvements why ought the House to compel the landlord to pay for past improvements in respect of which not a single one of these safeguards could be applied, because at the time the improvements were made there was a different law? Of course it was impossible that the landlord should be able through having been given notice, or by taking any steps at the Court, or by registration, or by the preservation of evidence respecting the improvements, now to test the righteousness of the claims made or the necessity for the improvements. He contended that in the Bill itself there was justification for what the Lords had done. As the safeguards contained in the measure could not be applied to improvements made before the Bill was passed, it was obvious that those improvements could not come within its purview. The Attorney-General for Ireland had said that it was a very hard thing that a tenant who had made an improvement should be turned out at the end of the lease without being compensated. But that was not in the Bill. If a man had a lease of a house of
1542
which three years were yet to run and the remainder of the lease was bought by another man without the latter paying a single penny to his predecessor for the improvements he had made, under this Bill that man would be enabled to claim not what he gave for the three remaining years of the lease, but for every improvement that had been made on the premises for the last fifty or 100 years. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland putting down an Amendment to make the Bill retrospective to the tenant who had made the improvements and arguing that that was just to the tenant, but he could not see that a man who had bought the remainder of the lease of a house or shop with his eyes open should be compensated for improvements which he had never made or paid for. If they were to go into the actual moral root of this matter no argument that could be set up would modify the action of the House of Lords. He could conceive of another case in which there might be justification for giving compensation by this ex post facto legislation. He thought that if this Bill passed it would be a hardship on tenants who had done much in making structural alterations to which the landlord was an assenting party; but that was not the Bill as it stood. If the landlord were to claim the improvements without compensation at the end of the lease that would be giving him a present of something for which there was no justification or moral right. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General for Ireland had gone into the old story of the Act of 1870. He thought the House had worn that subject threadbare.
MR. CHERRYsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman never answered his arguments.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he had, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had evidently not done him the courtesy of listening to his speech. He maintained that the whole of the provisions of the Act of 1870 were made in consequence of the land hunger in Ireland where tenants would take farms on almost any conditions. But where was the house hunger in Ireland? If one walked through

1543
the streets of the towns and villages of Ireland he would find that the hunger was on the part not of the tenants for houses, but of the landlords to get tenants for the houses. He admitted that in England, at all events in parts of London, they had to pay higher rents than they had any right to do, but that was because they had to live there. He pressed upon the Government that they should accept this Amendment in some form or another, and if they could not adopt it in its present shape they might do so with some modification. He did not want to prolong the discussion but he must say that he did not think the Government should reject the Lords' proposal without trying to meet the other House in some way. There ought in his opinion to be some safeguard in regard to the tenants' claims which might be in some cases made under unjustifiable circumstances.
MR. CLANCYsaid that like the right hon. Gentleman he did not desire to prolong the discussion. He did not think it could be usefully carried on, because everything that could be said upon it had been said ad nauseam, especially in the Committee upstairs. As, however, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman touched the vital principle of the Bill, as one who had had a considerable part in the preparation of the measure he hoped he might be permitted to say a word or two. He admitted that if what the right hon. Gentleman had said were the case, there would be no justification for this Bill; but he denied the statement that there was no analogy between the case of the Irish tenants for whom provision was made in 1870 and 1881 and the tenants of houses for whom provision was made in this Bill. A great part of the case of the agricultural tenants in Ireland was that they were not free agents in contracting with their landlords, and on that basis Parliament passed those Land Acts of which they had heard so much. It was on the assumption which they in Ireland knew to be absolutely well founded, that there was no freedom of contract between the tenants in the towns of Ireland and the landlords that this Bill was proposed. The right hon. Gentleman did not know perhaps
1544
quite so much as some of them did about the conditions under which the town tenants in Ireland obtained possession of their premises, but he could tell him from his own absolute knowledge, and he thought every Irish Member might make the same statement truthfully, that while there were many persons who lived in houses who were quite independent of their landlords, there were scores of business men, small traders living in other houses, who were absolutely as unable to contract freely with their landlords as the agricultural tenants were with theirs, and it was because of that notorious fact which could not be denied that this Bill was proposed and justified. One would imagine that what was proposed was something monstrous and unheard of; he had heard it described in the House of Lords as confiscation. The Bill proposed that a man who made an improvement should get compensation for it. If that were the only proposition that had to be made on the subject some exception might be taken to the provision; but what were the conditions which must be fulfilled before any compensation at all could be given? The improvement must be at the date of the claim an actually existing improvement, and must add at the date of the claim a value to the landlord's property which the landlord never possessed before. Why should not the landlord pay for a thing which he never owned before and which was left to him by his tenant on quitting? The improvement, moreover, must be suitable to the holding, and must not diminish the value of any other part of the landlord's property; and it was expressly stated that every benefit which the tenant had received in the course of his tenancy from his landlord, whether in the shape of low rent or any other benefit whatever, was to be taken into account against the tenant; and if that were not enough the Government, in order to meet objections which had been raised by they Opposition, had added such a number of other exceptions that a town tenant rending the Bill would probably come to the conclusion that the first and second clauses provided simply for a number of cases in which he would not get compensation at all. It looked rather like a Bill for not giving him compensation, so

1545
hedged round was it with restrictions and limitations, all he believed unnecessarily imported into the Bill and all tending very materially to diminish its value. He really could not understand how any human being with a sense of justice could describe it as confiscatory legislation. What went on at present was confiscation of the tenant's property by the landlord, and it was that which the Bill sought to prevent. When the right hon. Member for Dublin University said they had provided sufficient legislation in regard to future improvements, he replied that the limit of possibility had stopped them from applying the provisions relating to future improvements to past improvements. Surely the question, however, was whether any injustice was done by the actual provision applying to past improvements. If a landlord had got property which he had not erected or paid for, why should he not pay for it when he got a higher rent in consequence of it? If they would say boldly that because of his unrestrained power in the past the landlord should pocket the benefit of the tenant's improvements, he could understand it, but he could not understand these finicking arguments which really did not go to the substance of the question at all, but were simply used for the purpose of clouding the issue. The issue was plain and straight. It was whether or not a man who got an increased rent by reason of an improvement that he did not make should pay for it. If he was not to pay for it the Bill might as well be dropped, because they could not go to the people of Ireland and say they had accepted such a compromise.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he desired to say a few words, for the simple reason that he and his colleague from West Clare spoke for a district in which there were an exceptionally large number of urban areas affected by this Bill or any Bill on this subject. He thought he was speaking with the authority of many of those who had been interested in the town tenants movement when he said that the Amendments introduced into this Bill by the House of Lords, particularly the one under discussion, if retained would make the Bill entirely worthless.
1546
It was a most extraordinary state of affairs that at the beginning of a new century a Bill desired by all classes and all the tenants in Ireland and having as many Conservative as Liberal supporters should be dismissed in half an hour and flung back in their faces by gentlemen about whom he did not wish to speak in a disrespectful fashion just; then and there, but who certainly did not represent anybody. The Bill was not concerned altogether with the idea of mitigating cases of hardship in the future, but it and the agitation of which it was the outcome had resulted from hard cases which existed at the present time. It was absurd to say that they should pass an Act of Parliament which would give no relief whatever to those who were suffering grievances at the present time by reason of landlords being in possession of property which belonged to the men who made the improvements. If the Lords' Amendment were accepted a great injustice would be done to the town tenants. He was glad to see that the Government were standing by their proposal, and if this Amendment was insisted upon in another place it would intensify the feeling of the town tenants in Ireland and a better and stronger Bill would later be passed. He could not help reflecting that the same course might be followed in regard to this Bill as was followed in the case of land legislation in Ireland. Bill after Bill in that case was rejected, with the result that a measure of a far more drastic and far reaching character had finally to be adopted.
MR. BARRIEsaid, as one of those who had considerable sympathy with this measure, that, modified as the Bill had been in its passage through this House, and altered as it had been by the House of Lords, it had been materially improved. But he regretted that the House of Lords had so altered it as to insert the words, the House was now dealing with. This measure was undoubtedly called for in Ireland owing to the action of certain landlords in that country. As modified it would, in his opinion, do no harm to good landlords and only be a measure' of justice to those whose action had brought it about. He could not

1547
quite agree with those with whom he usually acted and voted in the view they had taken in the matter. He considered the Amendments made in this House with regard to the compensation clause completely safeguarded the landlords against an unreasonable award for compensation. That safeguard was further strengthened on the Report stage, and therefore he hoped it would not be necessary to divide on this question, and that they would find the House of Lords willing to delete this Amendment in order that the Bill might be placed on the Statute-book.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was sorry he could not agree with his hon. friend. This, he thought, was one of the most serious Amendments that had been introduced this session, and in view of the fact that the Chief Secretary had said that this Act might be applied to England—
MR. BRYCE: I never said so.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would not argue that now, but he thought if the right hon. Gentleman looked up the Committee stage of this Bill in the Debates he would find that he had. He took a very serious view of this matter, and was afraid he would have to go to a division upon it. It had been said that because the father of a man had taken a piece of land at £1 a year and had put a house upon it, the landlord should not raise the rent; but he submitted that in most cases the man and his father before him, who had had the use of that house and the land for thirty or forty years, had been recouped over and over again. To say that a landlord was not to raise the rent under such circumstances was against every principle of business and would put an end to all prosperity in the country. He was certain whether this Bill passed or not a more drastic measure would be proposed in the future to extend it, and under all the circumstances he trusted that the House would divide upon what he considered was one of the most serious questions ever brought before the House.
MR. GWYNNsaid that if a vote was taken upon this matter all Members representing Ireland, save about 5 per cent., would be found voting in favour of it. It was a matter which concerned, not London, but the small towns throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University might say about land hunger, there was certainly a great scarcity of houses in many parts of Ireland. He desired to associate himself with all that had been said by his hon. friends on this matter, and to say with regard to the allegation that this was a measure of confiscation that all they were confiscating was the right of the confiscator to confiscate. It had been objected that the man whom the landlord would have to compensate was very often the man who had not made the improvement but who had taken over the holding since. He could see a very natural objection on the part of anyone to pay a man for what he had not done, but the incoming tenant would in most cases have taken over the lease and paid for the improvement in the shape of a higher rent. All he could say was that if this measure was thrown out in another place all the Irish representatives would wonder whether it was possible ever to get valuable legislation for Ireland.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he desired to associate himself in a very few words with the sentiments which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Derry. He had held for many years past what were called rather advanced views in connection with the question of town tenants. He had over and over again made pledges on the platform which he had always been prepared to fulfil in the House of Commons. He admitted that the clause dealt with one of the most difficult problems with which they were faced. Those opposed to the retrospective proposal forgot that the condition of affairs in Ireland was often totally different from the condition of affairs in England and Scotland. For his part he would confine the Bill to small towns, because in the large towns they could leave the natural ebb and flow of supply and demand to meet the conditions. If, as

1549
he believed, the principle of compensation was really accepted by every Irish Member he thought it should apply to the past as well as to the future. There was very much less likelihood of bogus claims being made for compensation by men who never contemplated the passing of this Act than by men who might make improvements with the deliberate object of getting compensation He thought, therefore, it was much safer to admit compensation for past improvements than for future improvements and, therefore, he supported the Government in this matter.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he was very much obliged to his hon. friend the Member for North Londonderry for the way in which he said he had to differ from some of his colleagues. He could assure his hon. friend he was equally sorry. But in every well-regulated family there were apt to be differences, and this was one of the cases in point. It would not however, make any difference to them in their relations. Having said that, he still held as strongly as ever that the retrospective action of this clause would inflict a very grave injury on landlords, and was quite uncalled for. Further than that, if it were left out, the Bill would still contain a great deal for which tenants would be very thankful, and which would very materially improve their position. He regretted very much the position the Chief Secretary had taken up with reference to this Amendment. It seemed to him there was ample room for compromise on this in conjunction with the sixth Clause. Whilst he was as strongly as ever opposed to its retrospective action, rather than lose the Bill altogether, he and he believed other Members sitting on the Opposition Benches would go some distance in allowing the Bill to be retrospective for a specified number of years. If the Chief Secretary had suggested to the House that this Amendment should be amended in the direction of allowing the Bill to be retrospective for five years, or even possibly for seven or ten years, all the reasonable objections of those hon. Members who were opposed to its retrospective action would be removed. He regretted very much the Chief Secre-
1550
tary had not taken that course. As the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government would drop the Bill if the Lords did not withdraw the Amendment the clearest and best way to come to an issue on the point was to divide on the Amendment. He thought it was highly probable the Lords would insist on the Amendment. He would be very sorry to see the Bill dropped, because it simply meant that they would have to fight the whole question over again. Of course they were quite ready to do that, but he would be sorry after three successive Bills had been introduced into the House of Commons that what he admitted were the wants of a large number of town tenants in Ireland should be still unsupplied. He thought that with a little give and take on this subject of retrospective action, the object aimed at could be perfectly well achieved under the present Bill. But apparently that was not going to happen, so that the sooner they got to a division on this clause the better.
MR. BRYCEsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had expressed his regret if the Bill should not pass. If the hon. Gentleman felt there were any danger of the Bill being lost he had a very simple way of prolonging its life, and that was to vote with the Government. He was sure the hon. Member's moral weight, coupled with that of the other Ulster Members who had spoken in support of the Government in resisting the Lords' Amendments, would have very great weight and effect in another place. The hon. Member had spoken of give and take. He (Mr. Bryce) thought they had given a great deal in the Bill, and they proposed to give more, but they could not give way on vital matters. There were only a few arguments used in the debate which he need refer to. He never thought to have to wish that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University should be in another place.
SIR E. CARSON: I do not wish it.
MR. BRYCEsaid he did not wish it for any reason except one, namely, that if it had been the case the Bill would have come back in a much better form. The

1551
right hon. Gentleman had stated a number of cases in which he admitted there was a case for retrospective action, and doubtless he would have called the attention of the House of Lords to those cases, so that they could have discriminated between the cases in which they thought compensation should and those in which it should not be given. He did not mean to say that there should not be some qualifications, but they had not had any put before them. He believed the cases affected would be exceedingly few. The right hon. Gentleman knew that as a rule in the small Irish towns the son lived where the father lived and improvements were made by predecessors who were not only predecessors in title but predecessors in family. The right hon. Gentleman had also regretted the fact that the Government, in making provision for the future, that there should be proper safeguards in regard to making of improvements against the landlord's wish, could not make provision for the past. But they had left it to a tribunal which was sure to take account of everything. The County Court Judge would look at all the circumstances under which the improvement was made, and he would do substantial justice between the parties. The hon. Member for the City of London had repeated the charge he had often made that the Bill would be made a precedent for England. The Bill was not in any sense a precedent for England, though he personally should have no objection to seeing some of its provisions applied to England. Any one who looked back on Irish legislation for the last thirty-five years, however, would find that the same thing had been said of every such measure. Let every pot or every tenant stand on its own bottom, and let them legislate for Ireland as circumstances required and for England as circumstancss required. Lastly, let him call attention to the very important fact which had come out in the debate as to the feeling that existed among Irish Members of all parties. They had the hon. Members for North Down and North Derry and probably other Ulster Members all supporting the Government, and they had a certain amount of qualified sympathy from the hon. Member who spoke last. These Ulster Members knew where the shoe pinched and that there was a
1552
strong feeling on the question among the tenants of Ireland. They knew more about the small Irish towns than did the hon. Member for the City of London. There never was a Bill more carefully and more scrupulously safe-guarded than this Bill, and he confidently hoped that the House if forced to take a division would send the Bill back with the full weight of its approval, because it was a measure which would remove long standing grievances in Ireland.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid it was a matter of great regret to him, when it appeared they were all agreed on the principle of this Bill that compensation should be given to the tenants for improvements, that for one provision the whole Bill should be dropped. He had no wish to say there were not hard cases in Ireland. They had heard a great deal about Lord Clanricarde, and there were other landlords whom he was not there for a moment to defend, but he did not know why a multitude of landlords should be made to suffer an injustice because a few landlords did not study their tenants and the community. He sincerely hoped the House of Lords would insist upon this Amendment. They did not regard the House of Lords as a legislative body in the same sense as the House of Commons. They looked upon the Upper Chamber more as a body to check hasty legislation.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think this is an occasion for giving advice to the House of Lords.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHhoped the spirit of compromise which the Chief Secretary had shown would enable him to reconsider the position he had taken up.
MR. BRYCE: I do not see that any compromise is possible.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he regretted when they were all agreed that the tenant should be paid for improvements that the other benefits should be lost for the sake of this one object.
MR. VERNEYsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had stated that they

1553
had no right to do a wrong thing to meet one or two hard cases. In his opinion this Bill did the right thing to meet many hard cases. The measure ought to be retrospective because it had to deal with accumulative acts of injustice. If the Bill was not made retrospective it would not touch the accumulated injustices. He wished to associate himself with those who had spoken against the Lords' Amendment, and he could assure the Irish representatives that there was a vast amount of sympathy with this measure amongst the English Members. He did not deny that there were objectionable landlords in Ireland, but what astonished him was that the best landlords should associate themselves with acts which pertained only to the Worst landlords.
MR. SLOANcongratulated the hon. Member for South Antrim on the consistent attitude he had taken up during the whole course of this Bill. No one who had listened to his speeches could help admiring his consistency. The hon. Member had stated that he represented the landlords. He certainly did not represent the people of the North of Ireland who were suffering from what this Bill would relieve them of. There were exceptions to the rule he was aware, but good landlords did not want this Amendment and bad landlords ought not to have it. For that reason be thought the Chief Secretary had
taken the proper course and those who differed with hon. Members below the gangway, both politically and religiously, were in complete agreement on this question. In his constituency of South Belfast 34,000 tenants would benefit under this clause, and he denied the statement of the hon. Member for North Belfast that it was not required. Whether or not the House of Lords accepted the attitude of the Commons on this question he was prepared to say that from his experience of the situation in the North of Ireland the people were quite prepared to enter into the fight with more energy and eagerness than they did before in order to have the Bill as it ought to be. When legislation of this kind was brought forward in Ireland and supported by all representatives with very few exceptions it was very hard that hon. Gentlemen with such large political experience as the hon. Member for the City of London should get up and oppose them. They in Ireland believed this was a good Bill, and they had the best reason to know. He heartily endorsed the attitude of the Government and associated himself with the Irish representatives in their refusal to accept this particular Amendment which would make the Bill null and void.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 265; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 501.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

Cheetham, John Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Aldan, Percy

Bilson, Alfred

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Clancy, John Joseph

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Boland, John

Clarke, C. Goddard

Ambrose, Robert

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Cleland, J. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Bramsdon, T. A.

Clough, William

Astbury, John Meir

Branch, James

Clynes, J. R.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brigg, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Brodie, H. C.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Stopford

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Cooper, G. J.

Barnard, E. B.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Barnes, G. N.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Cory, Clifford John

Beauchamp, E.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Cbas.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham

Byles, William Pollard

Cowan, W. H.

Bell, Richard

Cameron, Robert

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Bellairs, Garylon

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Cremer, William Randal

Been, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Crombie, John William

Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Crosfield, A. H.

Crossley, William J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

Dickinson, W. H. (St.Pancras, N

Lough, Thomas

Runciman, Walter

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lundon, W.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton underLyne)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lynch, H. B.

Sears, J. E.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Seaverns, J. H.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Seddon, J.

Elibank, Master of

M'Arthur, William

Selly, Major J. B.

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Crae, George

Shackleton, David James

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Kean, John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Killop, W.

Sheehy, David

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kicking, Major G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Fullerton, Hugh

Mallet, Charles E.

Snowden, P.

Gilhooly, James

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Soares, Ernest J.

Gill, A. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Spicer, Sir Albert

Ginnell, L.

Marnham, F. J.

Steadman, W. C.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Massie, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Glover, Thomas

Meagher, Michael

Strachey, Sir Edward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Micklem, Nathaniel

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Gooch, George Peabody

Molteno, Percy Alport

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, E. S.

Sullivan, Donal

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Summerbell, T.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morse, L. L.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hall, Frederick

Murphy, John

Thorne, William

Halpin, J.

Napier, T. B.

Tomkinson, James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncast'r

Toulmin, George

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nolan, Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ure, Alexander

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Verney, F. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wadsworth, J.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wallace, Robert

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Walsh, Stephen

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Grady, J.

Walters, John Tudor

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Malley, William

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Mara, James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Hibart, Sir Robert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wardle, George J.

Hodge, John

Paul, Herbert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hogan, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pollard, Dr.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hooper, A. G.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Waterlow, D. S.

Horniman, Emslie John

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh Central)

Watt, H. Anderson

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hudson, Walter

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, George (Norfolk)

Idris, T. H. W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jardine, Sir J.

Reddy, M.

Whitehead, Rowland

Jenkins, S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Whitley, J. H. (Haliax)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Rees, J. D.

Williamson, A.

Jowett, F. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Richards.T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Richardson, A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Tellers for the Ayes.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robertson. Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Lambert, George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robinson, S.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Carlile, E. Hildred

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

1556

1557

Chance, Frederick William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Liddell, Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Valentia, Viscount

Pell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Fletcher, J. S.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Tellers for the Noes—Viscount Castlereagh and Sir Frederick Banbury.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendment, "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words, 'Provided always that the sum to be awarded as compensation for any improvement shall in no case exceed the capitalised value of such addition to the letting value of such holding as the Court shall determine to be the direct result of such improvement,'" read a second time.
MR. BRYCE,in moving that the House agree with the said Amendment, stated that it really carried oat the intention of the Government. He did not think it made any difference to the Bill beyond rendering more explicit what was in the Bill before.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth, agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. CLANCYsaid he desired to protest against the Amendment on the ground that it was of a limiting and restricting character. He did not think it worth while to take a division upon it.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 1, line 20, after the word 'consideration' to insert the words, 'the time during which the tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of the improvement and," read a second time.
MR. CHERRYsaid the Government agreed to this Amendment very reluctantly. They were most unwilling to accept it. They thought it was unnecessary because the landlord was only asked to pay the value of the improvement at the time that he got it, and the Government thought it was not just that the time
1558
during which the tenant had enjoyed the improvement should be twice taken into account. In the first place, it was taken into account in reducing the value of the improvement, and, in the second place, further deduction might be made in respect of the period of time during which the tenant had had the enjoyment of the improvement. If an improvement was worth £500 when it was originally made, and after twenty years it had decreased in value by £200, the Government's view was that the landlord should have to pay £300. The Lords' Amendment had directed the Court to take into account, not only the diminished value of the improvement, but also the time during which the tenant had enjoyed it. They wished, however, to make every concession they could in order to get the Bill passed. They were adhering to the vital points, and they were willing to come to an arrangement on the others.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Cherry.)
MR. CLANCYsaid he entirely disgreed with the action of the Government in this matter. The Amendment diminished the value of the clause, and he did not think any defence could be made of it. It was not only unnecessary, but absolutely unjust. The time during which the improvements had existed would have to be taken into consideration when the Court came to inquire into their age and condition. In addition to that it was now proposed by the Government, in conjunction with the House of Lords, that the time during which the tenant had enjoyed his own property should also to taken into account against him. In his opinion that

1559
meant that the consideration of time would be taken into account twice over. A similar provision was actually inserted in the Land Act of 1870, and it was a remarkable fact that in 1896 the Unionist Government repealed it. It was no longer the law in Ireland when rent was being fixed that the time during which a man had enjoyed his own property should be taken into consideration. The idea of making a man pay for what was his own seemed to him the most absurd thing that could be imagined. In pursuance of the policy which his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford had announced the Nationalist Members protested in the Strongest possible manner against the Amendment, but they did not intend to divide the House upon it.
MR. BYLESexpressed agreement with the observations of his hon. friend who had just spoken. He did so as an English Member, who hoped that this Bill would be a precedent for English legislation on the same lines. The only reason given by the Attorney-General for Ireland in asking the House to agree to the Amendment was that the Government wanted to agree as far as possible With the Lords' Amendments. He himself wished to disagree with as many as possible of the Lords' Amendments on this and all other Bills. He would support his hon. friend if he divided the House in opposing the Amendment.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he desired to enforce the protest of his hon. friend against the acceptance of this Amendment. He did not think any protest could be too strong against the surrender in this matter on the part of the Government. He was surprised that the Attorney-General for Ireland had been a party to it.
MR. CHERRY: I did not say that I approved of the Amendment. I entirely disapprove of it. I asked the House to agree to the Amendment only as a Concession to the Lords.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid that the people of Ireland must be subjected to injustice in order that concessions might
1560
be made to those who sat in another place. That was a wrong principle in legislation. The vicious principle contained in the decision in the case of Adams v. Dunseath had worked evil since 1881. The principle had been denounced by those who were party to the judgment, but that very principle was applied in this Amendment. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had stated tint this Bill would be made the basis of further legislation. He might inform the hon. Member that when the Land Act of 1881 was introduced the Irish Members declared that it was insufficient. All the Land Acts which had been passed since then were due to the fact that the representations of the Irish Members were entirely disregarded by this House. Now the House was asked to follow that bad example. The value of house property in the towns and villages of Ireland was largely due to the industry and spirit of the occupiers, but he deplored the fact there had not been that extension of buildings which could have been desired. That was the reason why these tenants ought to be compensated and the Bill ought to be made retrospective. He repeated the protest of his hon. friend and thought that the surrender of the Government on the point could not be condemned too strongly.
MR. JOHN REDMONDthought there was no denying the fact that the House was engaged in a somewhat ridiculous proceeding with regard to this Amendment. The Government had declared that they entirely disapproved of the Amendment and no doubt the majority of the House disapproved of it, and yet they were pressed to agree to it. That was a ridiculous proceeding from one point of view. At the same time the Government had taken up the position. The Chief Secretary while conceding these Amendments to the Lords had expressed the sanguine hope that the Government would be able to induce them to give way on two important points. He was not able to share the hopes of the Chief Secretary, for he did not believe the Lords would give way. In his opinion, when the Bill went back to the Lords, they would again reject these two important points respecting retrospective action and compensation for disturbance.

1561
He would say, however, that if that were done, neither the Government nor the Irish Party nor the House of Commons would be committed to these particular Amendments. They would be perfectly free to face these points in the next measure brought before Parliament, and the Government would, on their own declaration, be bound in the future to stand by what they thought right. That being so, as a mere question of tactics he had no objection to the course suggested by the Government. But it must be on the clear understanding that he and his Party had registered their entire disapproval of the Lords' Amendments. The House of Commons was consenting to pay blackmail, but if it were found that that was no use, they would be exempt in future from any responsibility for the principle of this and other Amendments. He wished the Government clearly to understand that he and his friends expected them to stand by the important points in the House of Lords and not to give way any further in the smallest degree. They had gone to the fullest length they could, and he should regard it as a breach of faith if the Government in the House of Lords make any further concessions whatever.
MR. BRYCEsaid that most assuredly the Government were not committed to any approval of this Amendment. On the contrary they wholly objected to it. They thought it entirely wrong, and if there was any legislation next year on this question they would not be committed to accept the Amendment or the principle of it. But they continued to hope that the House of Lords would listen to words of reason and justice on this matter, and he wanted to give them a last chance to reconsider their position.
Lords' Amendments, "In page 2, lines 6 and 7, leave out the words 'made either before or after the passing of this Act'; in lines 13 and, 14 leave out the words 'whether before or after the passing of this Act'; and lines 17 and 18 leave out the words 'whether before or after the passing of this Act,'" read a second time.
MR. BRYCEproposed that the House should disagree to these three Amendments as they were all consequential on the rejection by the House of the first Amendment.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 2, line 19, after the word 'consideration,' to insert the words 'including a building lease,'" read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 2, lines 20 to 23, to leave out sub-section (5)," read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid he might explain to the House that this Amendment was agreed to in this House because at that time they had made the clause retrospective in its action. But after the action of the Lords in regard to that matter they must disagree now with the Lords' Amendment.
Consequential Lords' Amendments to the Amendment, in page 2, line 27, disagreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'or' and insert the word 'and," the next Amendment, read a second time, and agreed to.
Consequential Lords' Amendments to the Amendment, in page 3, line 13, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 3, line 13, to leave out the words 'made after the passing of this Act," the next Amendment, read a second time, and disagreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 4, line 7, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word 'in' in line 16, and insert the words '(1) Where the landlord without good and sufficient cause, terminates or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy, or it is proved that an increase

1563
of rent id demanded from the tenant as the result of improvements which have been effected at the cost of such tenant, and for which he has not, either directly or indirectly, received an equivalent from the landlord, and such demand results in the tenant quitting the holding, the tenant upon quitting the holding shall, in addition to the compensation (if any) to which he may be entitled in respect of improvements, and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled to compensation for the loss of goodwill and the expense which, by reason of his quitting the holding, he sustains or incurs upon or in connection with the removal of his goods, implements, produce, or stock: Provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed three years rent of the holding," read a second time.
MR. CHERRYmoved that the House agree with the Lords' Amendment except in regard to the last provision, viz., "provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed three years rent of the holding." He explained that in the Bill as originally introduced the clause provided for compensation for disturbance on a scale based upon the tenant's rent. The Government on the Second Reading expressed approval of that clause, but modified it so as to make the compensation payable for capricious or unjust disturbance. On his Motion a clause was introduced in Committee giving compensation in all cases where the landlord unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause disturbed or refused to grant a renewal of the tenancy, but it was then considered unwise to lay down any rule whereby the amount of the compensation should be fixed. The Government came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to do so. It was absolutely impossible to think of any principle that would apply to all cases. It was therefore left to the discretion of the Court that had to adjudicate the claim to say in any particular circumstances what amount the tenant ought to receive. That was the effect of the clause when it left the House of Commons. The House of Lords rejected that clause, however, and inserted a new clause. Although the Government preferred their own
1564
clause they were anxious to concede to the Lords as much as possible so long as the vital principles of the Bill were preserved. Therefore they agreed to the Amendment with the omission he had indicated. The rent of the holding could in, no way be the measure of the amount of compensation to be paid. The rent might be high and the compensation low and vice versa. A house might be used for business purposes and be rented at £100, and in the event of the landlord turning the tenant out that tenant might be able to get suitable premises quite close and thus his business be uninjured. In that case the only claim he could justly make would be for the cost of the removal. Obviously three times the rent, viz., £300, would be an entirely excessive amount. On the other hand a plot of land might be rented at £1 and the tenant might put up a valuable erection on that plot and establish a business. If the landlord turned him out nobody could say that three times the rent, or £3, would be the measure of the compensation that should be paid the tenant. The business might have been bringing in four or five hundred pounds a year, which might all be lost through the removal. It was quite obvious that the measure of compensation for disturbance must be assessed on the value of the good-will as well as on other considerations. Yet in the case he had put, under the clause as amended by the other House the total amount of compensation would be £3. It was obvious that the measure of compensation ought to be the value of the improvement, and it ought to be left to the Court to determine the amount.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'Provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed three year rent of the holding."—(Mr. Cherry.)
Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment," put, and negatived.
Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 4, to leave out lines 17, 18 and 19 and insert "any

1565
matter under this section," read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment "in page 4, line 23, to leave out 'partly for business purposes,' and insert 'to a substantial extent for trade or business purposes, and which are held (a) under tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act, or (b) under leases made after the passing of this Act for terms of less than thirty-one years, or for a life or lives, or (c) under contracts of tenancy existing at i the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under one hundred pounds per annum,"read a second time.
MR. CHERRYmoved that the House should agree with the Lords in the Amendment. Although it looked rather formidable on the Paper, its only effect was to exclude from the operation of the Bill leases made for more than thirty-one years. The Government thought that that was a reasonable proposal.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Cherry.)
MR. CLANCYsaid this was another of those Amendments which had an unduly restrictive effect.
Lords Amendment, "in page 5, line 13, to leave out 'except where otherwise expressly provided,"read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendment was a drafting one, and he thought they should agree to it.
Lords Amendments, "in page 5, line 26, after the word 'Act' to insert the words '(3) Any rules under this section shall be made after consultation with, or notice of consultation sent to, the President of the Incorporated Law-Society of Ireland"; "in lines 27 to 32, to leave out
1566
sub-section (3)"; read a second time and agreed to.
Lords Amendment'—
"In page 5, after Clause 10 insert Clause A. "A. (1)—Any person aggrieved by any determination of the county court under this Act may appeal either—(a) to the judge of Assize or a judge of the High Court, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, relating to appeals in the case of ordinary civil bills; or (b) to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court: Provided that if in any proceedings appeals are taken both to the judge of Assize of a judge of the High Court and to the Court of Appeal, the appeals shall be heard togeter by such judge, and a further appeal may be taken from his determination to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court,"—read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid that this Amendment might involve some questions of difficulty, but there was something to be said for it and he suggested that they should agree with it.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid they were placed in a very peculiar position by this proposal. It was thought by some of his hon. friends that the appeal should be to a judge of Assize, but on consideration, it was considered better to have the appeals to the Court of Appeal, and that view was adopted by the Government. Even on those Benches however, there was difference of opinion, as some thought the tribunal should be the Court of Appeal, and the others thought the best tribunal was the judge of Assize. This proposal of the House of Lords was to provide an alternative proposal, and gave an appeal either to one or the other. He did not under those circumstances see how they could get out of the double appeal. He thought the House of Lords would have done better to have left the provision as they had settled it.
Lords Amendment, "in page 6, after Clause 11, to insert Clauses B, C, and D:—B. Capital money arising under the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be applied

1567
in payment of any moneys expended and costs incurred by a landlord under, or in pursuance of this Act in or about the execution of any improvement, as for an improvement authorised by the said Settled Land Act; and such money may also be applied in discharge of any charge created on a holding under or in pursuance of this Act in respect of any such improvement as aforesaid, as in discharge of an in cumbrance authorised by the said Settled Land Act to be discharged out of such capital money. C. Where the landlord is a person entitled to receive the rents and profits of any holding as trustee, or in any character otherwise than for his own benefit, the amount due from such landlord in respect of compensation under this Act shall be charged and recovered as follows, and not otherwise (that is to say)—(1) The amount so due shall not be recoverable personally against such landlord, nor shall he be under any liability to pay such amount, but the same shall be a charge on and recoverable against the holding only; (2) Such landlord shall, either before or after having paid to the tenant the amount due to him, be entitled to obtain from the County Court a charge on the holding to the amount of the sum required to be paid or which has been paid, as the case may be, to the tenant. (3) If such landlord neglect, or fail within one month after the tenant has quited his holding, to pay to the tenant the amount due to him, then after the expiration of such one month the tenant shall be entitled to obtain from the County Court in favour of himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, a charge on the holding to the amount of the sum due to him, and of all costs properly incurred by him in obtaining the charge or in raising the amount due there under. (4) The Court shall, on proof of the tenant's title to have a charge made in his favour, make an order charging the holding with payment of the amount of the charge, including costs, in like manner and form as in case of a charge which a landlord is entitled to obtain. D. Any company now or hereafter incorporated by Parliament and having power to advance money for the improvement of land, may take an assignment of any charge made by a County Court under the provisions of this Act, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between such com-
1568
pany and the person entitled to such charge; and such company may assign any charge so acquired by them to any person or persons whomsoever",—read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid that this clause merely contained the machinery to enable some expenditure which might arise under the Act to be met. It did not, however, affect any principle, and he moved that they should agree with the Lords.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. CLANCYsaid it was difficult to estimate the effect of a clause like this on reading it for the first time. But he had no concern with it as it affected the landlords' interests, and it was for the landlords to take care of themselves. He would like to ask whether he was right in thinking that the provision was for the recovery of compensation only in the case of a landlord who was a trustee or a limited owner.
MR. CHERRYsaid he understood that if a landlord was a trustee or a limited owner, the tenant was entitled to recover compensation in the same way as if he were a freeholder. It really was to assist the tenant.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the clause was merely to provide how the money was to be paid in the case of settled estates and did not concern the interest of the tenants.
MR. CHERRY: That is so.
Lords Amendment, "In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'clubs for social and athletic purposes"; read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid he regretted the Amendment, but he supposed they must agree.
Lords Amendment, "In page 6, line 5, after the word 'building,' to insert the words, 'situate in urban districts, towns, or villages and"; read a second time.
MR. CHERRYmoved that the House should agree with the Lords in this Amendment, but said he did so unwillingly, as he had done in previous cases. The Amendment would, however, affect but a small number of cases. If a blacksmith or other person put up a small shop away from a town or village he was excluded. As the cases were very few in number, however, they thought it best to accept the Amendment. As originally moved it applied the Act only to cities and towns, but they endeavoured in the Lords to extend it by including villages.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—(Mr. Cherry.)
MR. CLANCYthought the clause was open to objection from every point of view, especially in view of the fact that it would lead to perpetual litigation upon the question of what was a town and what was a village. The cases which were excluded seemed to him very hard ones indeed.
MR. BRYCEsaid that if it was any satisfaction to the hon. and learned Member, he regretted the Amendment as much as he did, but he was afraid they were under the hard necessity of accepting it. He believed, however, that there were very few collections of houses which would be excluded. In a book which he had a village was described as a collection of houses in a rural district sufficient to constitute a hamlet, and thus hamlet was made equivalent to a village. Therefore very few houses would be sufficient to constitute a village, and any injustice which would be done would not be very large. He had no alternative, however, but to accept the Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Committee be appointed to draw
1570
up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid before this Bill left the House he desired to say a few words upon it. They had realised that afternoon that they had been occupying a somewhat ridiculous position. They had reserved their opinion upon a number of these points in order to facilitate the action of the Chief Secretary in attempting to persuade the House of Lords to reconsider some of their Amendments. He and his hon. friends were now going away to Ireland, and he wished the Government clearly to understand that they expected them to insist upon these important points in the House of Lords and not to give way further, even in the smallest particular. They had gone as far as they could, and he should regard it as a breach of faith if the right hon. Gentleman made any further concession to the House of Lords.
Committee nominated of Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Clancy, Mr. John O'Connor, and Mr. Whiteley.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Bryce.)
Motion put, and agreed to.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 10:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 35, after the word 'omission,' to insert the words 'or decision."—(Mr. Marnham.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 9, line 5, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'under this Act."
"In page 9, line 8, after the word 'brokers,' to insert the words, 'or other persons."—(Sir John Walton.)
"In page 9, line 10, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'the interests of the trust, but subject to this shall, whenever practicable, take into consideration."—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 19, after the word 'do' to insert the words, 'Provided that nothing in this Act, or in any rule made under this Act, shall confer upon any person not otherwise entitled thereto any right to appear, or act, or be heard in or before any Court or tribunal on behalf or instead of the public trustee, or to do any other act whatsoever on behalf or on the instructions of the public trustee which could otherwise only be lawfully done by a barrister or a duly certificated solicitor."—(Mr. Marnham.)
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid this clause was in the Bill as originally drafted, and he did not know why it was omitted. He had given the best consideration he could to it, and he accepted the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. BERTRAMsaid he desired in line 20 to omit all the words from "where" down to the word "but" in line 24 and to substitute other words. He thought the clause as it stood was meaningless. His object was to prevent the Court when granting administration from insisting on a trustee entering into a bond or providing sureties. He moved to insert "no bond, surety or other security shall be required from the public trustee by the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice or any district registry as a condition of any grant of administration to him, but he shall be subject to the same liabilities as a person who had entered into such bond, etc." He did not desire to press the Amendment, but he thought it was necessary to make clear the meaning of the clause.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that if his hon. friend would withdraw the Amendment he would consider the matter between this and Report. At present he thought the suggested words would be an improvement to the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. BERTRAMsaid his next Amendment was to leave out in sub-section (5) from the word "and" to the end of the sub-section. It appeared to him very desirable in the case of a public trustee to guard against fraud in his own office. He would be compelled to delegate his powers to a very great extent, and the chief protection upon which he could rely was that given by the provision of the Forged Transfers Act, which provided that before any deed of transfer could be registered notice in writing must be given to the holder of the stock at his registered address. In the case of a public trustee he ought to receive such notice at his private address, and he would know of any fraud that was being perpetrated in his own office. Otherwise if he had a fraudulent clerk and the notice was sent to his official address, the person who forged the transfer would have an opportunity of opening the letter, and the fraud might not come to the knowledge of the public trustee until too late. He moved.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 27, to leave out from the word 'and,' to the end of the sub-section."—(Mr. Bertram.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would consider the matter before the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 30, at end to add the words, 'and no person dealing with the public trustee either alone or jointly with any other trustee or person on any transfer of mortgage or reconveyance or other dealing with mortgaged property shall be affected with notice of a trust."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONthought there was a point in the Amendment which ought to be provided for, but suggested that the hon. Gentleman should accept the words he proposed to meet the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 30, at end, to add the words, 'and in dealing with property the fact that the persons or one of the persons dealt with is a public trustee shall not of itself constitute notice of a trust."—(Sir John Walton.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:—
MR. HARMOOD-BANNEEmoved an Amendment to provide a more rapid and serviceable way of dealing with the judicial trustee. He said he was glad that the Government were amending the Judicial Trustee Act, 1896, which had not been used to the extent it ought to be. If it had he did not think they would have needed this Bill. However, the Government were proposing to improve it by this clause, and he was now suggesting a further improvement. He wished to add the words "or such person as may be nominated by such person or persons to act as judicial trustee on their behalf, unless the Court otherwise order." Under the present Judicial Trustee Act there was power to apply to the Court for the appointment of a judicial trustee but his Amendment would enable the proper persons at once to make the appointment without the delay consequent on application to the Court, and it provided against any improper action by the words "unless the Court otherwise order." Besides being a more rapid and serviceable method of dealing with the judicial trustee it would make the Act more appreciated.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 10, after the word 'granted,' to insert the words, 'or such person
1574
as may be nominated by such person or persons to act as judicial trustee on their behalf unless the Court otherwise order."—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Amendment had substantial ground to recommend it. In certain cases no doubt it would be desirable that the executors or administrators who might have been appointed and were unwilling to act should have a voice in the selection of the person into whose hands they were prepared to entrust the management of the estate, and who might be constituted a judicial trustee under the Act of 1896. The difficulty was that the Amendment threw the burden of objection upon the beneficiary, whereas as the matter stood now in the ordinary case the person nominated would apply to the Court to constitute him a judicial trustee. Although there was something to be said for the hon. Member's suggestion he thought on the whole it would be unwise to accept the Amendment, as it would interfere with the machinery of the Judicial Trustee Act.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had an Amendment later on to leave out the whole of this section, because it was a very good illustration of the difficulty in an Act like this of dealing with the complicated position set up in the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896. The proper way to amend the Act was by a Bill exclusively devoted to the purpose. The Amendment under discussion was not on the Paper, and it was exceedingly difficult to understand it. From what he could see he thought it would be likely to get out of some of the difficulties which at present hampered the public in availing themselves of the facilities of the Judicial Trustee Act, 1896, but without the words before him it was difficult to form a conclusive opinion.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 18, to leave out sub-section (3)."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed) "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved the rejection of Clause 13 for the reason he had already given, namely, that the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896 required amending and ought to be dealt with separately. Any lawyer who had had experience of that Act and its application or who had studied the cases which had gone to the Court of Appeal upon its construction would at once see the great complication and difficulty which was likely to arise. If the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896 was to be amended at all it was one of those technical and difficult matters which ought to be dealt with in a separate Bill. Section 13 of this Bill was a wholly inadequate attempt to deal with the position which had arisen under that Act. He appealed to the Attorney-General to leave out the clause. The Bill was to establish a public trustee, but this particular clause had nothing to do with the public trustee, and was merely an attempt to patch up and improve the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896. That Act had been before the Court, and it had been held that it was an injudicious thing to appoint a judicial trustee with an ordinary trustee. There was a general opinion that the Act was not what it ought to be, and in a number of cases the appointment of judicial trustees had been refused. Any attempt to patchwork the Judicial Trustee Act in this way wag bound to create further complication and confusion. Those who, having gone into the question closely, were in a position to make suggestions to amend the Act, could not do so upon a proposition of this kind, and he hoped therefore that the Government would see their way to leave the clause out altogether.
MR. MICKLEM,in supporting the omission of the clause, said it was manifest that whoever framed this particular clause was not very well acquainted with the practice of the Chancery and the Probate divisions of the High Court. The two Courts seemed to have been hopelessly mixed up in the drafting, and an attempt
1576
was being made to extend the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896 to the Probate Court. The Judges had almost unanimously refused to enforce the Judicial Trustee Act, and if the Government wished to amend that Act it should be done by a separate Bill.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he found considerable difficulty in dealing with this clause. Sub-section (3) had already been struck out, and he had come to the conclusion that this was a foreign element in the Bill. He did not think the Bill in its original scope intended to deal with the Judicial Trustee Act, nor was he of opinion that this clause effected such a reform in that Act as was necessary to make it an effective working measure. He did not think this clause had been inappropriately described as a piece of patchwork. Any attempt to deal with the Judicial Trustee Act should form a separate measure. It was obvious that the clause as it stood would be of very little use and would need a considerable amount of amending to make it operative. He thought therefore that the section had better be left out. For these reasons he accepted the Amendment,
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid if this clause had remained it would have been necessary to put down four or five very difficult and complicated Amendments on Report.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause 14:—
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERmoved an Amendment providing for the regulation of the fees to be charged under the Act. He thought it was very important that the public should know that there was a regulation of fees by a public authority. He was a member of a profession which would probably benefit by the Act, and he did not wish it to go forth to the public that the fees to be charged were not liable to taxation as any other fees of solicitors and accountants were.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 26, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words, 'and the regulations as to fees to be taken under this Act."—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the suggestion of the hon. Member was a valuable one, and he would accept it. But he thought the proper place to insert the provision was in sub-section (5), and when they came to it he would ask the Committee to insert words providing that the remuneration of the auditor and the other expenses of the investigation and audit "shall be such as are prescribed by rules under this Act."
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONmoved an Amendment to the effect that the condition and account of every trust should be investigated and audited once a year. The object of the Amendment was to carry out more effectively the intention with which the Bill was framed, that intention, to quote the words of the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, being to prevent the breaches of trust which had been constantly occurring. Some attempts had been made somewhat to minimise 'the evil which this Bill was intended to remedy. The Report of the Committee which had inquired into the subject could not be accepted as conclusive. That Committee had before, them only such breaches of trust as came before the public, but, as a matter of fact, for every breach of trust which came before the public, there were ten suffered in silence. So far as trusts to be created in future were dealt with by the public trustee, he agreed that there would be absolute security for the trust funds. But there were at the present moment thousands of trusts which would continue to be administered by private trustees just as before. Further, there would be trusts created in future with private trustees, and this
1578
Bill provided no proper protection for the trust funds of estates where the public trustee was not, and could not, be appointed. Beneficiaries had had the right for about a hundred years to get an account, and according to the judgment of the Court in 1819 in the case of Pearce v. Green it was the first duty "of every trustee, receiver, or executor, to be constantly ready with his account." The trouble which had arisen in these matters was because the beneficiaries would not avail themselves of the rights they had. This clause would perpetuate the evil. If beneficiaries had exercised their right to ask the trustees for an account, there would not have been one-tenth of the defalcations which had occurred. There were in many cases social circumstances which made beneficiaries hesitate to avail themselves of the rights which they possessed. If they had not availed themselves of the right in the past, what reason was there to believe that they would demand an investigation in future? Hon. Members knew that they would not, and Parliament ought to protect them. Beneficiaries were generally widows and children; a widow was not accustomed to business, and if the trustee was her own brother, brother-in-law, uncle, or father-in-law, she would not take the risk of offending him by asking for an account. It this Amendment were adopted, there would be no trouble at all, because there would be no occasion for any feeling between the parties. A widow in the circumstances which he had described would be able to see the accounts and be satisfied without going to the trustee. Commercial companies of every kind, friendly societies, trades unions, and clubs, had periodical audits of their accounts, and why should not a pivate trustee render an account in the way proposed? One alleged ground of objection was the expense in the case of small estates. In the case of an estate with an income of £50 the number of securities to be examined and entries to be inspected would not take more than half an hour of the time of a man accustomed to business. The expense of a compulsory audit might amount to half a guinea, and need not be more than one per cent. of the income of the trust. No estate was so poor that the beneficiaries could not get some friend

1579
to do this necessary work, or afford an audit paid for on the scale of one per cent. The next objection to his Amendment was that private trustees would never stand it. His answer to that was that they would be glad to do it and very many did it now. In Scotland it it was almost a universal practice, and he was glad to see that it was becoming more and more the practice in England. Every man who became a trustee would obtain great comfort and protection from his proposal. Many trustees were plagued and pestered by life-renters to commit some little breach of trust so that they might obtain a little more income out of the trust funds, and the trustee, who might be a very good natured man, out of the goodness of his heart would not refuse, but grant it. But if the trustee had an auditor behind him he would say to the life-renter who made the application that he could not do it, and that answer would be accepted without further remark. The only man that he could understand who would object to his Amendment was really the honest trustee who had hopelessly mixed up the trust funds with his own affairs and got the whole into a muddle. But he must have to give an account of the trust funds some day, and why should he put it off? If he were compelled by an annual audit to submit the accounts of the trust funds to an auditor he would be all the happier and more comfortable. They were bound to come to an official audit some time. It appeared extraordinary to him that this kind of legislation, which corresponded to the commonsense view of the public, was so long delayed in Parliament, For instance, the great Companies Act of 1862 made no provision for an auditor. Then came the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank in in 1879, when a provision was made in an Act of Parliament for a bank audit. Then after thirty-eight years there was the Act of 1900 which directed that every limited liability company must have an auditor. But to this day there was not a single obligation on any company to put a balance sheet before the general meeting of the company, although it was the usual thing to do so. That showed that the common sense of the public had outrun legislation. He was assured that if his Amendment were adopted, men who accepted the position of trustees would
1580
find themselves easier in mind and more willing to act. He knew that there were some good-natured friends who said that because he was connected with the profession which might incidentally be affected, in moving this Amendment he had an axe to grind—[Cries of "No, no."]—but he could assert that he would not move a step across the House for all the fees that were likely to come to him as the result of his Amendment if carried. It was only from his intimate experience of thirty years that he had seen the necessity for this legislation. He appealed to the House and the Government to take courage in both hands and to adopt the Amendment which would bring legislation to a level with common sense and public opinion, and ensure that trust funds would be secured in a way they had never been before.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 30, after the word 'audited' to insert the words 'once a year."(Mr. J. M. Henderson.)
MR. HILLSthought the Amendment would do a great deal of harm because it went much too far. These trusts were of all kinds. They might be trusts of land or of stocks, and he did not think a rigid system of this kind ought to be applied to all trusts. Certain trusts accounts should be audited every year or oftener, but in other cases a yearly audit would be much too frequent. He thought the majority of large trusts had an annual audit already, and this section gave a large power to the beneficiary who thought things were not going as they ought to do, by enabling him through very easy and simple machinery to get an audit. He thought that in an experimental Bill this section went far enough. In the future they might come to some kind of compulsory audit, but if they persisted in inserting this Amendment now he thought they would wreck the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he differed with very great reluctance from his hon. friend. After a quarter of a century's experience of trusts, large and small, he had come to, the conclusion that a compulsory annual audit was required. Unfortunately a large number of cases of frauds

1581
in connection with trusts had come before the public of late, but there was a still larger number which had never seen the light of day. Those frauds had generally arisen where the trustees had the trust monies in their hands for years, where no accounts were kept, and where the trustees were tempted to use the trust funds for the purposes of speculation or for their own business. In such cases, matters went from bad to worse, of course. He believed that it would be the greatest boon to trustees in this country, of whom there were so many, to have the safeguard of an annual audit of their trust accounts. That would mean that accounts would have to be kept properly, both of the principal and of the income; secondly, that the accounts would be kept up to date; and thirdly, that the beneficiaries would be able to get a statement once a year at any rate, showing what the trust estate consisted of. If this Amendment were adopted, it seemed to him that it would enable an ordinary man to accept a trusteeship when asked by a friend to do so. The clause simply put into language the rights that beneficiaries already had. Every beneficiary to-day had aright to apply and insist upon the accounts being audited by the registrar of the Court. The next thing that struck him about this clause was that instead of making it compulsory to audit the accounts, the applicant had to apply to the Court to order that the accounts should be audited. He felt bound to say that there was hardly a trust in England in regard to which, if the beneficiary had to apply to the Court for an audit, it would not lead to a rupture of the pleasant relations which had hitherto existed between the trustee and the beneficiary. He hoped therefore that the Government would see their way to adopt the Amendment, and by so doing effect the greatest reform in the management of trusts that had ever been made. It would reduce to a minimum the chances of thieving. It would enable beneficiaries without offending their trustees to see exactly how they stood in regard to the trustee funds; in fact there was hardly a point of view in regard to the management of trusts, whether it was that of the beneficiary, the trustee, or the professional
1582
man interested, from which this Amendment would not be an improvement. The only objection he had heard to the Amendment was the expense. The trouble was nothing, because there ought to be no trouble at all. The accounts ought to be properly kept so that they could be audited. As to the expense, if the Committee looked at the words of the section itself they would find that there was power to get this audit done in the event of its not being done by the public trustee or some official appointed by him, and he supposed that the Government were going to indicate some maximum amount. He had not the slightest doubt whatever, speaking from a very extensive experience in this matter, that the Amendment would do immense good, and there was not a single practical ground of objection against its acceptance.
SIR E. CARSONhoped the Attorney-General would not accept the Amendment, because if he did it would imperil the Bill. How many trusts to which this Bill applied were there in this country? Nobody knew. If they were going to set up machinery for a compulsory audit they must also set up machinery for in some way or other registering all existing trusts and every trust which came into existence in the future. After that would come the compulsory audit, and how many auditors did they think they would want? They would have to set up hundreds of thousands of auditors all over the country. The truth was they were raising an entirely new question—a question quite alien to this Bill. He was not sorry that the question had been raised, however, because an hon. Gentleman had remarked that if a beneficiary asked for an audit the trustee was likely to be offended. [An Hon. Member: Some of them are now.] Well, there was one thing they knew. The trustee appointed under this Bill would not be offended, and he thought the very best advertisement that could be given to the Bill was that in the case of trusts under it they would have that compulsory audit which was admitted to be of the greatest possible advantage.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he viewed the proposal of his hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen with some sympathy. His hon. friend's experience in these matters had been extensive, and he had shown an immense amount of practical knowledge of the subject, and possibly the object which he had in view might be attained when this clause had been in operation sufficiently long to enable them to obtain experience of its working. He would point out, however, that the proposal of his hon. friend was a very large one. He suggested the adoption of a scheme of audit which would be applied to every estate whether large or small, whether it needed an annual audit or not, and whether or not the parties desired it. As he understood the proposal, his hon. friend desired an automatic audit of every trust of every size, whether the trust was constituted by an instrument made with that object alone, or was created under an instrument which had some other object. Such a proposal was exceedingly drastic and wide. The House had never discussed it. It had never been discussed by the profession, or by those who in the last twenty years had been interested in framing this legislation. He concurred in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University that to try to bring it into existence at this period of the Bill would be to imperil the passing of the measure. He was sure his hon. friend did not wish that the Bill should be imperilled. He would point out that the present clause went a long way to meet the hon. Member. He thought they were making a substantial step towards the goal which they might ultimately reach after they had had experience of the working of this clause. The Bill as it stood would give the beneficiary, or any one trustee, the right to have the accounts of the estate audited. That in itself was a very important provision. He could not conceive a trustee refusing to accept a trust because he would have to submit to an audit of the accounts. The proposed trustee would rather say he would accept the trust, provided the accounts were audited. It would tend to relieve him from liability to have a compulsory audit taken annually. Under the clause they had a
1584
very far-reaching scheme for the audit of trust accounts, but the universal application of a yearly audit would, if provided for, be outside the practical scope of this measure. He did not think the Committee would be wise to go outside that range and accept a proposal which might be adopted two or three years hence but which, if inserted at this stage, would imperil the measure.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he had very much sympathy with his hon. friend in his endeavour to get a compulsory yearly audit, but he was afraid that if he persisted in his Amendment and carried it, it would wreck the Bill, which was a better measure than anything they had had up to the present and which might be made better still in time. He agreed that it would be an enormous relief to trustees if they could get a compulsory audit, but having regard to the impracticability of getting such a clause in this promising Bill, he appealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.
* MR. RADFORDsaid he had listened to the arguments of the hon. and learned Attorney-General and had not been moved by them. They were arguments that could be used against any new proposals, and were the kind of arguments always used by Ministers who did not agree with the proposals that were suggested. He was in favour of the Amendment. In this Bill nothing had yet been done to promote the object of the promoters, which was to give security to trust funds. The Bill was purely optional, and no one would suggest that the people of this country would appoint no trustee but the public trustee. The proposal of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire did not introduce a new principle in the method of administering their affairs. He had followed the lines of custom and habit of enlightened people who considered their duties, as trustees, to the beneficiaries and considered the responsibility of their own position, and who did, as a matter of fact, have a periodical audit by competent accountants for the satisfaction both of their beneficiaries and of themselves. If the Government pursued that course he

1585
thought they would be taking a wise course, and that it would result in making a law that would be operative. So far nothing had been done except to ensure that a number of gentlemen should receive appointments and salaries. Though trusts were now administered fairly well, the beneficiaries did not know anything of the way in which they were administered, or whether even the primary duties of the trustee were being carried out. He quite agreed that any attempt on the part of a beneficiary to obtain an account from the trustee was likely to lead to quarrels; but if the suggestion embodied in this Amendment was accepted it would make the audit compulsory, and the trustee would not have to refuse the beneficiaries information, and hence there could be no quarrel that kind. It was the air of secrecy with which trusts were conducted that led to negligence, irregularity, and fraud, and it was in order to put a stop to those things that hon. Members were anxious to find a device of some sort. They were indifferent as to whether it was done by a public trustee or in some other way. If a compulsory periodical audit were enforced the result would be to improve the conduct of trustees all round, because while some were dishonest the great majority were merely negligent or stupid. It would be to the benefit of the beneficiaries and the community alike, and it would pull up short those trustees who were negligent or speculative. If a man knew his trust funds were to be audited at a short date by a competent accountant he would think twice before he committed an irregularity or fraud. That would do more to prevent fraud than the appointment of public trustees and a large staff of officials. They were not without some precedent for this legislation. The Bankruptcy Act of 1883, although not in his opinion a good Act, certainly contained one good clause, which enabled the Board of Trade to call upon all trustees of liquidations under the previous Act of 1869 to bring in their accounts. The result of that was in some respects deplorable, because a number of persons who had up to that time held a high position in their profession were found to have
1586
misappropriated trust funds, and there were sad smashes in various directions. If this Amendment were carried it might be that some people interested in trust estates would have a rude awakening in a similar way, but that was not an argument against the Amendment. It was desirable, if a trust fund was being mismanaged or misappropriated, that they should know the worst and the sooner the better. For these reasons he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. BERTRAMsaid hon. Members of this Committee seemed to think there was some magic in the word "shall" and that the insertion of the word in this Bill would, ipso facto, produce an audit of all trusts. That was not so. In this Bill there was no machinery to penalise trustees who did not obey the mandate. Supposing a trustee ignored the section what penalty was there. How could this section be put into motion except upon the application of some person who desired the audit? The mere insertion of the word "shall," would not have the effect the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest of causing a compulsory audit of trust accounts throughout the country. They must remember that there were a large number of trusts in this country in which there were, in practice, no accounts to be audited; such trusts for example as marriage settlements under which the trustees had given directions that the income from the securities should be paid over direct to the tenant for life. There was no machinery in this Bill to enforce penalties, and if the Amendment was incorporated in the Bill it would not be operative.
*MR. R. PEARCEsaid the words proposed to be left out were "on an application being made." He desired to know whether that application was to be made to the Court or to the public trustee. It seemed to be desirable that there should be some summary method of getting this audit.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid it was not intended to make an application to the Court. It was to be made to the public trustee.
*MR. R. PEARCEsaid that explanation removed the doubt he had in his mind and made the clause satisfactory. He thought the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire would, after what had been just said, do wisely if, having made his protest, he did not proceed further.
MR. DUNNsaid he was in sympathy with the object the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire had in view, but he certainly saw very great difficulties in carrying it out. The only difficulty with regard to the form of the clause was that unfortunately it required of persons who were probably most unwilling to audit the duty of auditing. If the clause contained words relating to the desire of a testator or settlor in regard to the audit it would certainly be more valuable than in its present form.
MR. J. M. HENDERSON,in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, said he still felt it would have to come; why not at this opportunity he could not see. He admitted there was protection wherever the public trustee was appointed, but there were thousands of trusts existing now for which this Bill provided absolutely no protection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn:
Amendment proposed—
In page 10, line 31, to leave out the word 'applicant,' and to insert the word beneficiaries."—(Mr. J. M. Henderson.)
Question proposed, "That the word "applicant' stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONthought the word "applicant" ought to remain in the clause.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid there was difficulty in accepting any word in lieu of "applicant" in this clause, though the word itself was open to objection. The whole clause as drawn was an astonishingly difficult clause.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 10, line 37, to leave out the word 'entitled,' and insert the words 'appointed under this section."
"In page 11, line 3, after the word 'any,' to insert the words 'securities and."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. MICKLEMmoved an Amendment to save expense by requiring that copies of the accounts need only be sent to trustees who desired them.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 3, after the word 'trustee,' to insert the words 'who may desire it."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. Every trustee, whether he desired it or not, should have a copy of the accounts.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 11, line 11, after the word 'trust,' to insert the words, 'and that he has had the securities of the trust fund investments produced to and verified by him."—(Mr. J. M. Henderson.)
"In page 11, line 11, at end, to insert the words, 'or (as the case may be) that such accounts are deficient in such respects as may be specified in such certificate."—(Mr. Micklem.)
"In page 11, line 23, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'such as may be prescribed by rules under this Act and shall"—(Sir John Walton.)
Amendments agreed to.
*MR. RADFORDmoved an Amendment to provide that the expenses of the audit should be borne, not as the clause proposed by the applicant, but by the estate. If some such words as these were not

1589
inserted there would be scarcely any applications at all to the public trustee and the whole clause would be inoperative.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 23, to leave out from the word 'shall,' to end of clause, and to insert the words 'be paid by the trustees out of the income or capital of the trust property, or partly out of one and partly out of the other as may be prescribed."—(Mr. Radford.)
Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was willing so to amend the clause that in the normal case the expenses would fall on the estate, but at the same time giving the public trustee discretion to apportion the expenses between the applicant and the estate.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid there was no necessity whatever for bringing in a public trustee unless there was a dispute as to appointment and as to payment.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that as the clause stood it contained the words "if the public trustee otherwise directs." There was nothing which enabled him to deal with the question of expense. The applicant would pay unless the public trustee said he should not pay. He would suggest the words "In the event of the public trustee so directing he may order that such expenses be borne by the estate, or by the trustees personally, or partly by them and partly by the estate."
MR. MICKLEMsaid that under Section 14 the cost would have to be borne whether the public trustee came in or not. Assuming that the case was properly brought under the section, he thought the expenses ought not to fall upon the applicant. This section would not be brought into operation at all if the applicant had to pay. He thought it was manifest that the cost of the audit ought to be borne by the estate and ought not to be thrown upon the applicant.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid he had an Amendment down in the same sense, but the difficulty was that the Attorney-General wanted to throw the whole cost upon the applicant unless the public trustee otherwise directed. He wished to do exactly the opposite.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was anxious that this Bill should meet every case in the best possible manner. There was a real difficulty with regard to the cost of the investigations of the auditors, and it should not be passed over in a moment. It depended upon who had to bear the cost whether the Act would be availed of or not. As trusts were conducted to-day the trustees kept the accounts, and if any beneficiary wanted a copy he had to pay for it. Without this section the applicant would have to pay the costs. It was now proposed that the costs should be thrown upon the estate, and he thought that would lead to some confusion. Did that mean capital or income? It should not be forgotten that a large number of trusts were fully invested and there was no spare money. These were practical difficulties in the administration of estates.
*MR. RADFORDsaid the words proposed by the Attorney-General would not give effect to what he desired so well as the words which he himself had moved. He was of opinion that rules made deliberately and at leisure would probably carry out the purpose in view better than words in the Act suggested on the spur of the moment even by so high an authority as the Attorney-General. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider the matter.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he thought it would be very much better to have words in the Act.
*MR. RADFORDasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 24, to leave out the words 'paid by the applicant,' and insert the words

1591
'and in the event of the public trustee so directing, he may order that such expense may be borne by the applicant, or by the trustees personally, or partly by them and partly by the applicant."—(J. M. Henderson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsuggested that some words should be inserted to show whether the expense was to be paid out of capital or interest.
Question put, and negatived.
Words proposed there inserted.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 15, at end to add, '(f) the classes of corporate bodies entitled to act as custodian trustees; (g) the form and manner in which notices under this Act shall be given."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:—
MR. MICKLEMmoved to add words defining the expression "administration of an estate" as meaning "administration of the estate of a deceased person." He thought the words "administration of an estate" were ambiguous and that they might apply to the administration of any trust estate in the lifetime of the person creating the trust. This was merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 34, at end, to add, the expression 'administration of an estate' means 'administration of the estate of a deceased person."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid if this were merely a drafting Amendment he would not take exception to it, but it was capable of being construed in a sense which would make it dangerous. He thought the Amendment was unnecessary.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he did not think the definition which he proposed to introduce would cut down what was provided for in Clause 3, but it would make clear that the clause was only intended to apply to the trust estates of deceased persons.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not accept the view that Clause 3 should be limited to estates of that class.
MR. MICKLEMsaid it seemed to him to be quite a new provision in the Bill if it was to be made to apply to settlements by persons still surviving. He thought the intention was not to interfere with what a man did during his lifetime.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the words "administration of an estate" occurred in two or three other clauses as well as Clause 3. If the proposed definition were accepted confusion would be created in regard to the other clauses.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that the object of the next Amendment was only to give the same construction to this Act as to the Act of 1896.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 3, at the end, to insert the words 'that other expressions have the same meaning as the meaning of the words in the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896."—(Sir John Walton.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
*SIR JOHN WALTONmoved a new clause to bring the Act into operation from 1st January, 1908.
New clause, "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1908."—(Sir John Walton.)
Brought up, read the first time, and added to the Bill.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he wished to move a financial clause left over from the previous night.
New clause—
"(1) The Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall be liable to make good all sums required to discharge any liability which the Public Trustee, if he were a private trustee would be personally liable to discharge, except where the liability is one to which neither the Public Trustee nor any of his officers has in any way contributed, and which neither he nor any of his officers could by the exercise of reasonable diligence have averted, and in that case the Public Trustee shall not, nor shall the Consolidated Fund, be subject to any liability;(2) All sums payable in pursuance of this section out of the Consolidated Fund shall be charged on and issued out of that fund or the growing produce thereof."—(Sir John Walton.)—
Brought up and read the first time and the second time.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he wished to move to omit the words 'from discharge to the end of the sub-section. It was quite clear, he maintained, that one of the main objects of the Bill was to put the public trustee in a similar position to a private trustee, and make him liable in the same way as a private trustee, and therefore no exception should be made to the one which did not apply to the other.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 4, of the proposed new clause, to leave out the words 'from discharge' to the end of sub-section,"—(Mr. Micklem.)
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he regretted that he could not accept the Amendment. The intention of the Bill
1594
was to offer to the public a guarantee in regard to all funds which were placed in the hands of the public officer constituted under its provisions. It was for the public to say whether that guarantee was sufficient to make it worth their while to hand over their funds to him. If they did so they would have the undertaking of the Imperial Government. But the Treasury and the Executive authority did not see their way to give an unqualified guarantee in every case. The reasons were given when the Bill was last before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Parliament, now Lord St. Aldwyn, who made a statement that it would be imprudent to provide for a larger indemnity than was embodied in the clause as it now stood. If the public believed that the security was sufficient, then the Bill would be a success; but if they considered that it was not sufficient, then trusts would be left in the hands of private trustees.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he thought that the hon. and learned Attorney-General was quite right in regard to the maintenance of those words in the clause. Under the Trustees Act of 1896 where the trustee was not personally guilty where any fraud was committed he was freed from all responsibility.
MR. HERBERTsaid that it appeared to him that the liability of a public official was very different from that of an ordinary trustee. He thought that the case would be met by the third section of the Judicial Trustee Act, and it appeared to him a mistake to grant relief from liability in a form of words different from that in the Act mentioned.
*MR. RADFORD:said that in regard to this Bill they were in the position of a firm pushing a new article, namely, the Public Trustee, who

1595
had to compete with various other articles on the market—the private trustee and the various corporations who did this class of business. By this measure it was provided that the Public Trustee should be liable to make good any loss which up to the present the private trustee had been liable to discharge. So far, so good, but he could imagine the family solicitor closeted with the testator and considering the question of whether the Public Trustee should be appointed or not. The family solicitor would say to the testator, "I must draw your attention to the words of sub-section 1, of Clause 17 of the Public Trustee Act." He would read to the testator the words which showed that the Public Trustee was liable under the same conditions as the private trustee except when the liability was one to which the Public Trustee had not nor had any of his officers in any way contributed, and could not have averted by reasonable diligence, and that in that case the Public Trustee was not, nor was the Consolidated Fund to be liable. He thought that the testator in considering those words would regard them as something alarming, and I would be inclined not to take the Public Trustee to administer his affairs, but to stick to the old plan of having a private trustee. He did not very clearly understand what the meaning of those words might be, and although he had listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Attorney-General had said, he did not glean from his remarks what was their precise bearing. No doubt it was his own fault and due to some defect in his intelligence, but the words were long and complicated, and they were the more alarming from the fact that they were insisted upon by the
1596
Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted upon these words being inserted the right hon. Gentleman must think that there were certain liabilities which might sound in damages from which it was desirable to escape. He appealed to the hon. and learned Attorney-General who desired to promote the success of the Bill to consider this matter.
MR. MICKLEMasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MICKLEMmoved after the word "discharge" in line 4 of the proposed new clause, to insert "or to discharge any liability incurred by the Public Trustee in that capacity." He said it must be perfectly manifest to the Committee that the Consolidated Fund should be liable not only for any acts of the Public Trustee for which he would be liable if he were a private trustee, but also for the action of the Public Trustee for anything he did in his public capacity. The Public Trustee had under some sections of the Act judicial authority. He might go completely wrong and make the various beneficiaries incur costs which there was no way of meeting, unless words were inserted which enacted that the Consolidated Fund should be liable for the acts of the Public Trustee as such. Then in addition to his judicial functions, the Public Trustee had administrative functions us distinguished from the private trustee. There were certain sections inserted directing him to undertake certain duties, and if in consequence of his discharge of those duties, loss resulted to the beneficiary,

1597
he thought the Consolidated Fund ought to be liable.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 4 of the proposed new clause, after the word 'discharge' to insert the words 'or to discharge any liability incurred by the Public Trustee in that capacity."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Amendment did not seem to him to be necessary, but he would consider the matter. The, substance of the Amendment, he thought, was effectively provided for.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. R. PEARCE,who had given notice of the following Amendment—
"In line 12, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that the Consolidated Fund shall not be liable under this section while the national expenditure under the control of Parliament and provided for by taxes exceeds one hundred million pounds in the year,"
said that this matter was dismissed the night before, and he did not apprehend that the Government would since have changed their mind. It would therefore be no use persevering with his Motion.
Clause agreed to.
New clause:—
"The salary or remuneration of the Public Trustee and his officers and such other expenses of executing his office or otherwise carrying this Act into effect as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."—(Sir John Walton.)
Brought up and read the first and the second time and added to the Bill.
New clause:—
"(1) There shall be charged in respect of the duties of the Public Trustee such fees, whether by way of percentage or otherwise, as the Treasury with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor may fix, and such fees shall be collected and accounted for by such persons and in such manner, and shall be paid to such account as the Treasury direct. (2) Any expenses which might be retained or paid out of the trust property if the Public Trustee; were a private trustee shall be so retained or paid, and the fees shall be retained or paid in the like manner as and in addition to such expenses. (3) Such fees shall, under the regulations of the Treasury, be applied as an appropriation in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for expenses under this Act, and, so far as not no applied, shall be paid into the Exchequer. (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 ensure the Consolidated Fund against loss under this Act), and no more."—(Sir John Walton.)
Brought up and read the first and the second time.
MR. MICKLEMmoved at the end of the proposed new clause to insert—
"(5) The incidence of the fees and expenses under this section as between capital and income shall be determined by the Public Trustee subject to appeal to the Court."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would accept the Amendment if the last words "subject to appeal to the Court" were omitted. He did not think those words were wanted, and if they were left out he thought the Amendment would be a useful one.
MR. MICKLEMconsented to the omission of the words.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 20 of proposed new clause, at the end, to insert, the words '(5) The incidence of the fees and expenses under this section as

1599
between capital and income shall be determined by the Public Trustee."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD,having alluded to the difficulties of auditing if the apportionment of the charges between capital and income was not dealt, with, made one more appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney-General to make the matter clear.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would consider the matter.
*MR. R. PEARCEsaid he noticed that the clause proposed that this matter should be left in the hands of the public trustee. In New Zealand, where this subject had been a matter of considerable discussion, it was not left to the public trustee, but there was a graduated scale with a diminishing charge as the estates increased in value. He thought that such a provision should be prescribed by some higher authority than the public trustee and should be dealt with by rules.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid there was a provision to the effect that the Lord Chancellor should frame rules, and these would have reference to the question whether the incidence of these fees should fall upon capital or income.
Motion made, and Question proposed.
"That the clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
MR. J. D. WHITEsaid that before this question was put to the House be would like to call attention
1600
to the financial arrangements in all these clauses and particularly with regard to this clause. It was provided that all fees should go into the Consolidated Fund and all payments both as to management and liability and insurance against liability, etc., were to come from the Consolidated Fund. He ventured, however, to think Section 5 was by no means sufficient to make the ends meet. There was considerable danger that there might be in various directions a balance of liability on the Consolidated Fund. He pointed out also that while the benefits of the Bill extended to England alone, the Consolidated Fund was contributed to by Scotland and Ireland. He had no claim to speak for Ireland, but so far as Scotland was concerned, he could say that she also needed a public trustee. It not infrequently happened in Scotland that small estates were either mismanaged and wasted or the profits were eaten up by legal expenses. All he could do was to express the hope that as Scotland contributed to the liability under this Bill she should not be refused the benefit of it, and that the Government in the near future would either constitute a public trustee for Scotland or in some other way consider her claims when the question of equivalent grants came up for discussion.
MR. MICKLEMsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed was that persons who were dealing with beneficiaries should be able to obtain information as to the state of the property of such beneficiaries. The whole matter was somewhat technical but, as all those who understood the question

1601
knew, a trustee under the present law was not bound to answer any questions put to him even if they were put with the authority of the beneficiary as to any assignments made by him. He ventured to think that if we were to have a public trustee he should be bound to keep a register and to answer any questions put on behalf of the beneficiary. The object of this was to enable a man interested in an estate to borrow money upon his interest if he required to do so for any purposes of his own on marketable terms. If no register was kept and the trustee refused to answer any questions, the person borrowing money would have to go to a moneylender and pay unfair rates of interest, although he was dealing with his own property. There could be no possible objection to the Public Trustee being bound to keep a register to which beneficiaries and others interested might go and see what was being done. Without imposing any hardship on the trustee it would be of great benefit to all beneficiaries who wanted to deal with their estates. He begged to move.
New clauses—
'(1) The public trustee shall keep a register of all notices received by him, including notices passed on to him by former or other trustees, of assignments, settlements, in cumbrances, and other dealings affecting, and Orders of Court changing or appointing, receivers of the present or future interest of any beneficiary in the property subject to the trust. (2) It shall be the duty of the public trustee to acknowledge the receipt of all notices received by him in respect of any of the before-mentioned matters. (3) The register relating to each trust shall be open to inspection by the beneficiaries or persons authorised by them at all reasonable times. (4) Any person suffering loss by reason of the failure of the public trustee to enter on the register such notices as aforesaid shall be entitled to be indemnified by the public trustee, and such loss shall be deemed to be a liability within Section 7 of this Act. Subject to
1602
rules under this Act any person claiming as beneficiary, purchaser, or mortgagee to interested in any trust property held by the public trustee either alone or jointly shall be entitled to give a notice to the public trustee to operate as regards the trust property in the same manner as a distring as notice or stop order operates upon stock standing in the books of a company or upon funds in Court. In any case where the public trustee is acting as custodian trustee jointly with other trustees notices required to be served on the trustees shall be deemed to be duly served if served on the public trustee alone."—(Mr. Micklem.)—
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
*SIR JOHN WALTONexpressed the hope that the Amendment would not be pressed. He pointed out that as the law now stood, m the absence of any express provision, the public trustee would be in exactly the same position as a private trustee, subject to the same obligations, and with a right to exercise a similar discretion. His conduct would be regulated by the rules of law applicable to the administration of estates. This Bill contemplated that in making rules the Lord Chancellor should deal with the exceptional situation arising from the fact that the public trustee had been called in to discharge duties which had hitherto devolved upon private persons. It was certain that some provision would have to be made in those rules in order to enable the object of the hon. Member to be carried out. The whole matter was one of detail, and one which would have to be considered, and he did not think it would tend to the practical value of the scheme if the Government accepted the Amendment.
MR. MICKLEMsaid that, in the face of the assurance of the Attorney-General

1603
that this matter would be considered and dealt with by the rules proposed to be made by the Lord Chancellor, he would not press the Amendment.
New Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Title:
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'the Judicial Trustee Act, 1890, and otherwise."—(Sir John Walton.)
Amendment agreed to.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTexpressed the Committee's sense of the tact and great courtesy with which the Attorney-General had conducted the Bill through Committee.
Bill reported, with an amended title; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 378.]

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments reported and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Bryce.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS—EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
That they insist on their Amendments to the Education (England and Wales) Bill to which this House has disagreed, for which they assign their reason.
That they have agreed to—Land Tax Commissioners Bill, Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, with an Amendment; Land Tenure Bill, Workmen's Compensation Bill, Notice of Accidents Bill, with Amendments.

TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
That they agree to the Amendment made by this House to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Trade Disputes Bill, and to the consequential Amendment made by this House to the Bill; and do not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
Lords reason to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 379.]
LAND TENURE BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 380.]
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 381.]

NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed, [Bill 382.]
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at half after Nine o'clock.