Commons Sitting of 14 August 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Kilmarnock Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Inverness Royal Academy Order Confirmation Bill, "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Inverness Royal Academy and Educational Endowments," presented by Mr. Sinclair, and ordered, under Section 7 of the Act, to be considered upon Friday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Armagh Urban District Council Bill, with an Amendment.
Amendment to—Oxford and District Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways." [Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the

1275
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Aberdeen Harbour." [Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And, also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Burgh of Dumbarton." [Dumbarton Burgh Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], ordered, under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered To-morrow.
Dumbarton Burgh Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.] Ordered, under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered To-morrow.
Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.] Read the first time; and ordered, under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 317.]

PETITIONS.
  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from Leytonstone and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 22, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Accession of Nicaragua to the Convention, signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 17th June, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TREATY SERIES (No. 23, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Accession of Panama to the Convention, signed at Geneva, 22nd August 1864, for the
  1276
  Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 29th July 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COMMERCIAL (No. 8, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Report by Sir Eldon Gorst and Mr. Llewellyn Smith on the System of British Commercial Attachés and Commercial Agents [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3899 and 3900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Regulations, dated 6th August, 1907, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, for the process of heading of yarn dyed by means of a lead compound [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation (Scotland) Returns for the-year 1905–6 [by Act] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Abstract and Detailed Tables showing Countries of Consignment of Imports and Countries of Ultimate Destination of Exports (Supplement to Vols. I. and II.) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Board of Education Second Division Clerks.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Board of Education how many Second Division-clerks, appointed under the Order in Council, 21st March, 1890, are employed in the Board of Education; how many clerks have been promoted to higher posts in the office from this class since its

  1277
  introduction; and the date of such promotions.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) In the Board of Education there have been 188 Second Division clerks appointed under the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890. Understanding that by "higher posts" the hon. Member means all posts carrying a salary superior to that of the higher grade of the Second Division, one clerk was promoted on 16th January, 1906, to be a junior staff clerk.

  Shopkeepers and Income-Tax.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the assessment of income-tax under Schedule D upon shopkeepers, the house in which they carry on their business, as regards rent and valuation, is taken into account in such assessment; whether it is usual when the assessment is made by the surveyor of taxes, and when such assessment is paid in due course by the shopkeeper, for such surveyor to make a fresh application months afterwards for tax under Schedule A upon the same premises and for the same year; whether he is a ware that the surveyor of taxes at Cookstown has directed one of his collectors to call upon certain shopkeepers who had paid income-tax under Schedule D, as aforesaid, and, without previous notification, demand payment peremptorily of income-tax upon the difference between the rent and valuation; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Income-tax under Schedule A is payable in respect of premises used for business purposes as of other premises; but, in estimating the profits of a business for assessment under Schedule D, a deduction is allowed for the amount of the net Schedule A assessment. The tax under Schedules A and D is, as far as possible, collected concurrently. A long interval could only occur under exceptional circnmstances. The surveyor is not aware of any case in which a peremptory demand has been made which has not been preceded by the ordinary demand note for payment.

  Devonport Gun Wharf Workers.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the eighteen
  1278
  men employed in the workshops of the Army Ordnance Department, His Majesty's Gun Wharf, Devonport, are not now granted the extra 1s. per week which has been given to the labourers; that these men, before the advance, were in receipt of 22s. 6d. per week, that included 6d. per day allowed them for skilled work; and that the extra 1s. which was paid to them for a few weeks has been withdrawn, by the deduction of 2d. per day from the 6d. for skilled work, leaving them only 22s. 6d. as before; and whether, seeing that men employed in the dockyard on similar work are receiving from 24s. to 27s. per week, he will favourably consider restoring to these eighteen men the advance in wages recently granted to their comrades.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) As I have already explained to the House on 3rd June, the wages paid to the men doing the work in question remained unchanged, and, on the information now in my possession, I do not consider them inadequate for the work which the men have to perform.

  Day Industrial Schools.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the success of day industrial schools and the desirability of extending the scope of such schools by admitting suitable voluntary cases, he will, in his proposed legislation for next year affecting children, take steps to modity Section 16 of The Education Act, 1876, which, by fixing the maximum limit of the Treasury contribution to day industrial schools at 1s. a head for committed cases and at 6d. a head for other cases, has done a great deal to hamper the development of these schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I hope to deal with the matter in a Bill next session; but I cannot at present make any promise of an increase in the amount of these grants.

  Long Lane, S.E., Police Barracks.
  DR. COOPERTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the total expenditure on land and buildings of Monro House and Bradford House, Long Lane, S.E., recently erected for married men of the M Division of

  1279
  Metropolitan Police; whether he can state how many families each house accommodates and the amount of rent charged for each tenement; whether the rent includes all the charges, the interest of the loan, the sinking fund, rates, taxes, repairs, and cost of management; if not, what is the annual amount of the deficit; and whether the deficit is charged to the rates, or how it is met.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The total expenditure on land and buildings was £12, 500. Each house accommodates twelve families. The rents vary from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a week, the total rental amounting to £513 10s. per annum. The rent is inclusive; rates, taxes, and other outgoings being defrayed from the Metropolitan Police Fund. Having regard to the shortness of time during which the building has been in occupation, the annual amount of the deficit falling on that fund cannot at present be stated.

  Victoria University, Manchester.
  MR. HARWOOD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state for what reason the maximum State grant to Universities has been reduced; and whether he is aware of the hardship inflicted upon the Victoria University of Manchester by depriving it annually of £2, 000, in reliance upon which engagements had been made, which cannot now be cancelled, for increasing the service of the University to the community.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) It has been decided that in future no institution participating in the grant for University colleges shall receive more than £10, 000 per annum. Unless the total grant, which has been increased during the last few years from £27, 000 per annum to £100, 000 per annum, is to be indefinitely increased, some maximum limit for particular grants must be fixed, and the limit in question has been arrived at upon the recommendation of the Advisory Commit tee, who fully considered all the circumstances and, in particular, the claims of the smaller colleges. The University was informed last year that the grant then made must not be regarded as an assured source of income, the whole of which might be appropriated to purposes of recurrent expenditure, and that the
  1280
  allocation of the grants would be entirely revised in the current year.

  Irish National Education Board.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the dates on which meetings of the National Education Board have been held between the 1st July, 1906, and 30th June, 1907; the names of the Commissioners present at each of these meetings; the number of meetings attended by each of the twenty Commissioners during the twelve months in question; and the remuneration in the way of salary or expenses, etc, paid to each Commissioner for each meeting attended.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following statement gives the dates of meetings of the National Education Board during the period referred to and the number of Commissioners present at each meeting—

  Dates of Meetings.

  Number of Commissioners present.

  1906.

  July 3

  15

  July 17

  14

  July 31

  9

  August 14

  10

  August 28

  14

  September 11

  13

  September 25

  11

  October 9

  16

  October 23

  14

  November 6

  13

  November 20

  17

  December 4

  16

  December 18

  16

  1907.

  January 3

  12

  January 15

  13

  January 29

  12

  February 12

  9

  February 26

  12

  March 12

  10

  March 20

  8

  March 26

  12

  April 9

  12

  April 23

  11

  May 7

  17

  May 14

  15

  May 21

  12

  June 4.

  10

  June 18

  14

  The Commissioners do not receive any remuneration by way of salary, but their

  1281
  travelling and personal expenses are paid, and the payments are regularly audited by the Exchequer and Audit Department. The Commissioners inform me that they do not think it desirable to give details as to the attendance of individual members of their body, as they consider that no useful purpose would be served by furnishing this information.

  The Organiser of Irish.
  MR. McKILLOP (Armagh, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of applications from principal and assistant teachers respectively received by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the position of organiser of Irish, and the number of such teachers who have taught Irish successfully during the past year, receiving the general report of excellent or very good.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the number of applications for the post of organiser of Irish received from principal and assistant teachers respectively is tifty-five and twenty-six. The information asked for in the latter part of the Question will take some time to prepare.

  Lunacy Commissioners' Report.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Lunacy Commissioners have laid upon the Table their Annual Report for this year; and, if so, when will it be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The body of the Report for 1906 was laid upon the Table on the 27th of June last. The appendices are now in the printers' hands, and it is hoped that the whole Report will be issued in about a fortnight.

  Metropolitan Assistant Police Commissioners.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a military man has recently been appointed one of the assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police; whether the gentleman appointed has had any previous experience of police work; and whether, before making this appointment, any consideration was given to the advisability of promoting one of the present superintendents or appointing a person acquainted
  1282
  with the police duty of a large town.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The last occasion when a military man was appointed an assistant commissioner was in 1902. The gentleman then appointed had been Assistant Commissioner of Police of the City of London, and had had twelve years police experience.

  Irish Marriages.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH (Fermanagh, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether clergymen of the Disestablished Church in Ireland are compelled to furnish quarterly returns of all marriages celebrated by them; are the clergy of other denominations required to furnish such returns; and are any payments made to the clergy of any, and, if so, which, religious denominations for such returns.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The clergy of all denominations in Ireland, except the Roman Catholics, are bound, under the Act 7 and 8 Vic., c. 81, to register marriages in duplicate and to furnish quarterly returns of marriages to the proper officer. The duty of registering Roman Catholic marriages in Ireland is imposed on the husband by the statute 26 and 27 Vic., c 90, known as Monsell's Act. No payment is made to the clergy of any denomination for furnishing returns of marriages.

  Geashill Farm Dispute.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay in completing the purchase of Mr. Charles Dempsey's farm at Ard, Geashill, King's County, which the Estates Commissioners propose to divide with an evicted tenant named Wyer; is he aware that Dempsey is being sued by the Land Commission for the amount of annuity due on the whole farm up to last May, although half the land is in the possession of the evicted tenant; and will he see that the sale is expedited.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have, at the request of the owner, made inquiries into the matter

  1283
  referred to in the Question, and they are at present considering their inspector's report. The Commissioners have no knowledge that part of the farm is in the occupation of the evicted tenant, Wyer.

  Teachers of Irish Model Schools.
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Commissioners of National Education have framed rules to regulate the appointment of teachers to model schools, and that Rule 51 states that candidates are invited by advertisement to submit their names, he can say why this rule has not been adhered to in the case of the Belfast model school, where a vacancy existed recently in the girls' department.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that candidates were not invited by advertisement for the vacancy in the Belfast model school for girls, because the vacancy was filled by the transfer of the teacher of the Newtownards model school for girls. The vacancy in the latter school has been duly advertised, and the appointment will be made at an early date.

  Water for Belfast Rioters.
  MR. LUTTRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the loss of life at Belfast through the firing with bullets in the streets, he would make representations to the authorities as to whether, in the event of the necessity of dispersing a mob, some other means, such as the use of water, might be adopted.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.), I think my hon. friend may rest assured that, as in the recent case, the authorities will only use firearms in the very last resort, and when all other means have failed. I will, however, bring my hon. friend's suggestion to the notice of the authorities.

  Crown Agents' Contracts.
  MR. WALKER: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Crown agents invite freight tenders for all cargo and stores shipped by them; whether in any cases deferred rebates are granted; if so, what has been the rate of
  1284
  the rebates and the amount so received during each of the years 1904, 1905, and 1906, and how the money has been applied; and whether any preference is granted to certain lines of steamers in consideration of these rebates.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The evidence given by Sir E. Blake on the 9th July before the Royal Commission on Shipping Rings (which has been published) contains full information as to the practice of the Crown agents in shipping matters. If the hon. Member desires it he can be supplied with a copy of the list of West African rebates handed in by Sir E-Blake in reply to Question No. 10, 874.

  Turkish Raid into Persia.
  MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received official information to the effect that the Turkish force which recently crossed the Persian frontier was marching with fire and sword in the direction of Urumia, and had shelled the Christian village of Mewan, killing about ninety persons, including women and children, and carrying off ten girls; and, if so, whether he is making representations to the Sublime Port on this matter.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on the 8th instant. In reply to the representations made to the Porte, His Majesty's Government are informed that the information of the Turkish Government is to the effect that the first attack came from the Persian side, and that orders have been sent to withdraw the Turkish troops within the neutral zone and to punish those guilty of excesses.

  Inland Revenue Porters.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many porters are employed in each of the various branches of the Inland Revenue Department; how many classes are they divided into; what is the scale of pay of each class; whether they are all allowed pensions on retirement after the usual number of years service; and, if not, seeing the low scale of pay of these men and the large salaries and pensions given

  1285
  to the higher officials in this department, will he explain why.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the number of the porters and the offices to which they are assigned are as follows:—Controller of Stamps and Stores Office: I foreman packer and porter, 30s.—2s.—40s. 8 packers and porters, 20s.—1s.—30s. Pensionable. Stamping Department: I van attendant and porter, 20s.—1s.—30s. Pensionable. Office-keepers' Branch: 4 door porters, 1, £65—£2—£85* 3, £52—£2—£56. Pensionable. I head coal porter, £90 per annum. Pensionable. I deputy head coal porter, 27s.—1s.—30s. a week. Non-pensionable. 3 porters, 28s. a week. 40 porters, 20s.—2s.—24s. a week. Non-pensionable. Liverpool Collection: I porter and messenger, 25s.—1s.—30s. I hall porter, 20s.—1s.—25s. Non-pensionable. London Central Collection: I hall porter, 30s. a week. I coal porter, 20s.—2s.—24s. Non-pensionable. Manchester Collection: I porter and messenger, £2 a week. I coal porter for 35 weeks annually, 10s. a week. Non-pensionable. Comptroller's Office, Edinburgh: I coal porter and furnace man, 30s. I coal porter 20s. Non-pensionable. Glasgow Collection: I hall porter, 25s. a week. Pensionable. I coal porter, 11s. 6d. a week. Non-pensionable. Comptroller's Office, Dublin: 2 fire lighters and coal porters, 20s. a week. Non-pensionable. Belfast Collection: I porter and stamper, 35s.—1s.—40s. Non-pensionable. As regards the last part of the Question, it is one of the conditions of the employment of the non-pensionable men that their service shall give no claim to pension, and the salaries are adequate to the duties.

  Exchequer and Audit Establishment.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will furnish a copy of the Exchequer and Audit Establishment list for each of the last ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that there are no spare copies for the earlier years of the list, which is issued merely for use in the Exchequer and Audit Department, but if the hon. Member cares to call at the office of
  *To be succeeded by one on lower scale.
  1286
  the Comptroller and Auditor General he can have access to the official volume.

  Local Government Board Auditors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that new entrants as Local Government Board auditors have no practical experience of audit work, and that, considering the nature of the duties, such experience is of value, he will explain, why such positions are not given to the trained and experienced auditors of the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) An auditor now usually serves as an assistant auditor before he is appointed as a full auditor, and, moreover, an assistant auditor before appointment has commonly had training with an auditor. In this way the persons appointed obtain knowledge and experience of the particular-work connected with the audit of the accounts of local authorities, which the staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department could not be expected to possess.

  Contracts and Fair Wages.
  MR. WHITEHEAD (Essex, S.E.): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Board exercises any control over the form of contract entered into by local authorities, and in particular as to the insertion in such contracts of what is known as the Fair Wages Clause; and whether he requires the insertion of such a clause in contracts for the carrying out of which it is necessary for local authorities to obtain the sanction of the Board or a loan sanctioned by the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. John, Bums.) The Board have no control over the form of contract entered into by local authorities except in the case of Poor Law authorities. It is competent to a local authority to insert a Fair Wages Clause in their contracts, but the Board have not in any ease required them to do so. My hon. friend is perhaps aware of the Parliamentary Return as to the contracts of local authorities which was issued in 1905, and which gives information as to the course adopted by local authorities in this matter.

  Durban Passengers Grievance.
  MR WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his

  1287
  attention has been called to the fact that three passengers on board the White Star liner s.s. "Persic," which sailed from Durban on 27th March, were forced to land at Plymouth, notwithstanding that they intended to proceed to Tilbury, without being informed of the risk which one of them ran from exposure to a railway journey, owing to the fact that he was suffering from typhoid fever; whether the fact of this disease having occurred on board was notified to the port authority or Board of Trade; whether it ought to have been notified, and to whom; whether the summary landing of these passengers at Plymouth relieved the ship's officers from any duty of reporting the disease on arrival at Tilbury, or in any way expedited the discharge of the vessel in the port of London; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; whether his department, or other authority, has any power to prevent the spreading of disease in this way in this country; and whether, having regard to the loss and expense incurred by several persons through the above events, he will cause full inquiry to be made into the whole matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Perhaps I may be allowed to Answer this Question. My attention has been called to the case mentioned in it, and I have made inquiry with regard to it. The passengers referred to left the ship at Plymouth under the advice of the ship's medical officer, but I do not understand that they were forced to do so. The medical officer appears not to have regarded the case as one of typhoid fever, but as extremely suspicious. He states that he reported the case at Plymouth to the pilot, giving him the principal symptoms as a guide for those ashore, and that the pilot assured him the case would be looked to. I am informed that the discharge of the vessel was not in any way expedited by the landing of the passengers at Plymouth. The Local Government Board have informed the steamship company that in their opinion the ship's medical officer should either have sent an intimation in writing to the port medical officer of health respecting the case or should have mentioned it on the certificate given by him with regard to the health of the passengers and crew. The Board have suggested to the company that it should
  1288
  be made clear to the surgeons of their ships that, in all cases where suspicion exists of infectious disease on ships arriving in any port, information of the facts should be sent in writing by the surgeon to the port medical officer of health. The company have given an assurance that in future this will be done.

  Ships' Casualties.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when it is proposed to issue the Return giving the casualties to ships in 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) This Return is in the hands of the printers, but no date can be fixed for its issue.

  Bellary Quit Rents.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that ten rupees per acre is now demanded as quit rent in the cantonment of Bellary and fifteen rupees per acre in the civil lines; whether these quit rents are largely in excess of the figures usually charged; and whether he will inquire if there is any sufficient reason for such increase.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no information on the subject, but I will ask the Government of India to acquaint me with the facts.

  Unearned Land Increments in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether such increases in assessment as are from time to time, and in exceptional localities, made in India, in due proportion with increases in land values, not resulting from the action of the landholders, provide revenue for public purposes by intercepting the unearned increments; and whether, if that be the case, he will resist proposals for relinquishing the power to raise assessments, the retention of which is so greatly to the interest of the poorer masses of the Indian peoples.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The revenue derived from the land assessment is unquestionably a most important item in Indian finance, and any proposals for depriving the Government of its prescriptive right to revise from time to time the assessments in

  1289
  temporarily settled tracts would need to be supported by very strong considerations. No such proposals are before me. The question of securing equitable and moderate assessments, especially when, as is often the case, the revenue payers are in humble circumstances, stands on a different footing.

  War Office Boy Messengers.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many boy messengers are employed at the War Office; how many leave on an average each year; how many have left during the last five years for age limit, for misconduct, and for other reasons; how many obtained posts in the Civil Service as men; and whether any provision is made for the after employment of boys who leave on account of age.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Seventy-three boy messengers are now employed at the War Office. From 1st July, 1902, to 30th June, 1907, an average number of twenty-nine left annually, thirteen left under the age limit, six for misconduct, and 128 for other reasons. I have no information to show how many obtained posts in the Civil Service as men. No special official provision is made for the after employment of boys who leave on account of age, but every effort is made unofficially to assist them in this direction.

  British Garrison in Egypt.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the strength of the British troops stationed in Egypt and the Soudan.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is not considered expedient to publish the strength of British troops stationed abroad.

  Yeomanry Drill Book.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office are contemplating the issue of a drill book for that branch of the Territorial Army hitherto known as the Yeomanry; and, if so, whether it will contain all the information which a yeoman is required to know, so that reference to numerous text books may be unnecessary.
  1290
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane): It is not the intention of the Army Council to issue to the force mentioned a training manual containing a variety of information extracted from other manuals. It has been decided, after careful consideration, that the issue of several manuals containing the same information, is objectionable.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Turnchapel Coaling Depot.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any intention of proceeding immediately with the work involved in the establishment of a new coaling depot and fuelling depot for submarines at Turnchapel, near Plymouth.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): Work on the coaling depot was started a considerable time ago, and is in hand now. Tenders will be invited shortly for the construction of the Fuel Oil Depot.

  Battleship Collision.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a collision between the new battleships "Commonwealth" and "Albemarle" occurred early this year, resulting in severe damage to the former; whether he can state what was the Report of the Court of Inquiry which was held into the circumstances; whether the Report of the Court was accompanied by a covering letter from the Commander-in-Chief; and, if so, what was the nature of that Report and what was the final decision of the Board of Admiralty in the matter.
  MR. LAMBERT: The Commander-in-Chief, Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Arthur Wilson, reported that it was not in his opinion a case for court-martial, and the Board of Admiralty were of the same opinion.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon Gentleman answer my Question as to the Court of Inquiry?
  MR. LAMBERT: I have answered it.
  MR. ASHLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not answer my Question why information of a precisely similar kind asked for in this House by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs was given him by the Admiralty to use against another hon. Member of this House?
  MR. LAMBERT: That is a totally different Question. I have answered the hon. Member's Question. The Commander-in-Chief reported that it was not, in his opinion, a case for court-martial, and the Board of Admiralty were of the same opinion.
  MR. ASHLEY: May I ask, does the Tight hon. Gentleman consider that an Answer to the paragraph which asks what was the Report of the Court of Inquiry which was held into the circumstances.
  MR. LAMBERT: As I have said, the Commander-in-Chief reported that it was not, in his opinion, a case for court-martial, and the Board of Admiralty are of the same opinion.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Part of the Question is whether the Report of the Court was accompanied by a covering letter from the Commander-in-Chief, and what was the nature of that Report.
  MR. LAMBERT: I have just said what the Commander-in-Chief's Report was.
  LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.): The hon. Gentleman really has not answered the Question.

  The Home Fleet.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the secretary to the Admiralty, what is the number of ships now forming the Home Fleet: of these, how many were present at the recent review at Portsmouth and afterwards proceeded to sea?
  MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first part of the Question is 219 vessels, excluding submarines. One hundred and seventy of these, together with fifteen submarines, assembled at
  1292
  Cowes, all of which except four proceeded to sea after the inspection.
  MR. GRETTONI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what ships of the Home Fleet were engaged in the recent manœuvres in the Channel; what was the duration of these manœuvres, and will there be any further exercise of the Fleet at sea in the course of the present year; and, if so, when may it be expected?
  MR. LAMBERT: One hundred and sixty-six vessels of the Home Fleet were engaged in exercises for two days in the Channel after leaving the Solent. Vessels from the Home Fleet will take part in fleet exercises in October next.

  The Channel Fleet.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if it is proposed to make any addition to the Channel Fleet; if so, what ships will be affected; from what divisions are they to be drawn; and what steps will be taken to replace the ships thus transferred?
  MR. LAMBERT: The armoured cruisers "Black Prince" and "Duke of Edinburgh" will be added to the First Cruiser Squadron, and the two destroyer flotillas at Portland, with their attendant vessels, will be attached to the Channel Fleet for the present. The "Black Prince" is now in the Second Cruiser Squadron, and will be replaced there by the "Carnarvon." The "Duke of Edinburgh" comes from the Fifth Cruiser Squadron, and will be replaced shortly. The destroyers, which have hitherto formed part of the Home Fleet, are merely transferred to another command, and it is not at present intended to increase the total number of active service destroyers in Home waters in view of the large number with four-fifths crews which are attached to the Home Fleet?
  MR. GRETTON: Is it in contemplation to transfer any battleships to the Channel Fleet?
  MR. LAMBERT: No, Sir. I have said the armoured cruisers "Black Prince" and "Duke of Edinburgh" are to be transferred.

  Militia Stores.
  MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that his predecessors have relieved a considerable proportion of the counties in Scotland of their liabilities, under the Militia Act of 1854, to provide stores and quarters for Militia battalions; and whether, in view of that partial relief, he will, when completing arrangements consequential upon the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, consider whether an equitable agreement can be come to under which the remaining Scottish counties will be relieved of their obligations under the Act of 1854 to provide or maintain Militia stores and quarters.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the rest of the Question, the whole matter is now receiving careful consideration.

  Mufti Regulations.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the' Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of extending the privilege of, under certain circumstances, wearing plain clothes, now granted to warrant officers and non-commissioned officers not below the rank of colour-sergeants, to men of lower ranks of good character.
  MR. HALDANE: The extension of the privilege to wear plain clothes has only recently been made to certain classes of non - commissioned officers. Soldiers of good character are under existing regulations permitted at the discretion of their Commanding Officer to wear plain clothes on pass or furlough beyond the limits of the garrison in which they are quartered. It is not proposed to further extend this privilege.

  Tidworth Cavalry Stables.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the new cavalry stables at Tidworth have yet been commenced.
  MR. HALDANE: It is understood that the contractor will commence building operations next week.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: We have been told for the last two months that the work is about to be commenced.

  The Scots Greys.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what date it is proposed to move the 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys) from Tidworth to Bulford; and for how long a period they will be stationed at the latter camp.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether sufficient accommodation exists at Bulford mounted infantry camp for the whole of the personnel and horses of the 2nd Dragoons.
  MR. HALDANE: As regards these Questions there is no intention of moving this regiment to Bulford.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Are we to understand that the regiment is to remain at Tidworth throughout the winter? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that on a former occasion he informed me that, if the barracks were not completed before the winter, the regiment would be temporarily removed?
  MR. HALDANE: The noble Lord is to understand nothing of the kind. The horses will go to Bulford, if the stables are not ready in time. There is plenty of accommodation at Tidworth for the men. I must add that I am surprised at the number of Questions put to me about this matter. I know the gallant officers and men of the Scots Greys, and do not for a moment suppose they are so effeminate—[Laughter, which drowned the end of the sentence].
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his comment upon my Question. Is he aware that the distance from Tidworth to Bulford is five miles; and how does he suppose the squadron leaders are going to look after the men with the horses at Bulford during the winter months when they themselves are stationed at Tidworth?
  MR. HALDANE: They will have to suffer a little inconvenience. At the urgent request of the hon. Gentleman and other Members, we moved this regiment

  1295
  from Piershill because the barracks were not sufficient and not sanitary. Necessarily this involved a little time before arrangements could be made under circumstances of great pressure. I am sure the regiment would be themselves the last to complain.
  MR. ASHLEY: Do we understand that the regiment is to be quartered five miles away from their horses during the winter?
  MR. HALDANE: You are to understand that; and the soldiers are thankful that they have not to put up with worse hardships.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURasked what arrangements the War Office proposed to make for the horses to be looked after at Bulford during the night? Were the men to sleep in huts or tents?
  MR. HALDANE: There is abundance of houses at Bulford.

  Cavalry Barracks.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what reasons have led the War Office to depart from their previous policy of stationing cavalry in cavalry barracks.
  MR. HALDANE: The Aliwal Barracks at Tidworth are being adapted for cavalry by provision of the necessary stables. There is no question of previous policy involved.

  Medals for Meritorious Service.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the awards of the meritorious conduct modal are made only to officers and non-commissioned officers above the rank of corporal; and, if so, whether there is any reason why the medal should not also be given to corporals and private soldiers.
  MR. HALDANE: The medal for meritorious service is not awarded to officers, but only to warrant officers and sergeants. It carries with it an annuity not exceeding £20, and since its institution has always been confined to soldiers, or discharged soldiers, above the rank of corporal. The sum allotted for these annuities is not more than sufficient to meet the claims of warrant officers and
  1296
  sergeants. Corporals and privates may, after eighteen years service with an irreproachable character, be awarded the medal for long service and good conduct with a gratuity of £5.

  The New County Associations.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to take-steps to form County Association" throughout the Kingdom simultaneously or only in selected areas.
  MR. HALDANE: I shall endeavour to start an association for every county in Great Britain during the coming autumn and winter. I have appointed a special Committee to assist me in this work.

  India and the Sugar Convention.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will now have printed and distributed with the Votes the petitions presented from public bodies in India concerning the Sugar Convention, following the precedent of the Colonial Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): Perhaps the hon. Member will move for the Papers. They will then be laid.

  Panama Canal Labour.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the labourers engaged in the British West Indies for work on the Panama Isthmian Canal were informed that they would be permitted to taka with them their wives and families.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): No, Sir, not so far as I am aware.

  Transvaal Finance.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the full statement of the financial position of the Transvaal, which he promised to lay before the House, will be issued.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Papers which were laid on Monday are expected to be issued in the course of this evening.

  Transvaal Courts of Law—Access of Natives.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have now received from the Transvaal any reply to their telegraphic inquiry as to the Bill published in an Extraordinary Government Gazette of Saturday 3rd August, abolishing the access of natives to the courts of law in respect of decisions administratively taken by which individual natives or whole tribes can be transferred against their will from one district to another.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is still awaiting an official answer to his inquiry. It would, however, appear from Press telegrams that the part of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has been withdrawn.

  South African Federation.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the publication of the Command Paper on South African Federation, and the reasons urged in it for the union of the South African Colonies, His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Papers were published for the information of Parliament. It is for the people and the Government of South Africa to decide when and how any further advance in the direction of federation shall be made.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Do the Government contemplate offering advice or assistance in the matter?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Government will certainly give any assistance they can, bearing in mind, however, it is for them to follow and not initiate.

  Isthmian Canal Commission.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the circumstances
  1298
  under which it was lately held that the courts in the canal zone have no jurisdiction against the Isthmian Canal Commission for breach of contract.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,; for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend must refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Ecclesall on this subject yesterday.

  Post Office Savings Bank Depositors— Investment in Consols.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of a Welsh quarryman whose savings in the Post Office Savings Bank, having reached the maximum sum allowed to be deposited, were from time to time, upon the advice of the postmaster invested in the purchase of Consols, and to the fact that in this way a sum of £500 was so invested at prices considerably over par, and that the quarryman in question, having now an opportunity of purchasing his home, finds that such Consols, if now sold, would realise only about £400; and whether he will arrange with the Postmaster-General that instructions shall be issued to local postmasters to the effect that, when advising depositors to invest their savings in Consols, they shall be informed of the risk of fluctuations in the market price of the same, and that there is no guarantee that, when wishing to realise, they will be be able to obtain a price equivalent to their investments.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): No, Sir. My attention has not been called to the case referred to; but the official notices relating to the purchases of Government Stock through the Post Office Savings Bank clearly state that the Postmaster-General cannot take the responsibility of advising depositors with reference to their transactions or for any loss which may result from a fall in the price of the Stock between the dates of purchase and sale. If any postmaster has advised individual depositors otherwise, he has clearly been guilty of a breach of duty, of which due note will be taken, if the allegation is substantiated.

  Post Office Purchases of Consols.
  MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state in detail what amount of Consols, then bearing interest at 2¾ per cent., were purchased on account of the Post Office Savings Bank in the year 1897, and at what prices.
  MR. ASQUITH: The total nominal amount of Consols purchased on account of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund in 1897 was, as shown by the Return, House of Commons 108 of 1905, £6, 349, 485 11s. 9d. and the average price paid was £112 6s. I do not think that any purpose of public interest would be served by setting out in detail each separate transaction.
  MR. MYER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the highest price paid in 1897 for Consols?
  MR. ASQUITH: I will inquire.

  Trustee Savings Bank.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been directed to a statement made by Mr. Gladstone in this House on 18th June, 1880, with reference to the Trustee Savings Bank, that the annual account is naturally and reasonably based upon the price of public securities on the day when the account is taken; and can he explain why the method of valuation which was natural and reasonable in 1880 is now abandoned.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am aware of the statement referred to. It is fair to point out that it occurred in a speech in which Mr. Gladstone proposed to adopt a different method in place of that of market-price valuation. In recent years, as I have frequently explained, the publication of these valuations has been discontinued in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1902.

  Savings Banks.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that while it is on all hands admitted that the savings bank should be self-supporting, there are, at the present time, deficiencies in the capital accounts of the Post Office Savings
  1300
  Bank, the Trustees' Savings Bank, and friendly societies, estimated, in the absence of official balance sheets, to amount to at least £15, 000, 000; that the interest on the securities held fell short last year by £133, 000 of the united amounts of interest paid and working expenses; that while the banks are liable to the public for upwards of £200, 000, 000 they hold no reserve to meet claims; and whether, having regard to the foregoing facts, he will consider the advisability of appointing early next session a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question for the purpose of suggesting a means whereby the banks may be restored to a solvent condition.
  MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member's calculation of the capital deficiency rests upon the method of valuation of securities at current market price, which was condemned as misleading by the Select Committee of 1902. As regards the deficiencies of annual income of the Savings Banks Funds, it must be borne in mind that in the case of the Post Office Savings Banks the Exchequer has gained considerably more from the surpluses on that account in former years than it has had to provide to make good the deficiencies of recent years; while the deficiency on the Trustee Savings Banks Account last year was less than £10, 000, and is being gradually reduced.

  Inland Revenue Department.
  MR. BAKER (Finsbury, E.): I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the following Question, of which I have given him private notice:—Whether his attention has been called to a report on the work and organisation of the Inland Revenue Department published in the daily Press on the 12th inst., and purporting to be prepared at the request of the right hon. Gentleman; whether such report has official sanction; and if this report, apparently reflecting upon the honour, honesty, and competency, among others, of the assessors and collectors of Government taxes, represents the opinion of the Board of Inland Revenue.
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to this matter. I understand that my hon. friend the Member for Cheltenham has since written to the Press explaining that the suggestion that the report in question was prepared or

  1301
  published at my request is wholly without foundation. It simply formulates a number of allegations and suggestions which my hon. friend has made from time to time, and for which he alone is answerable. I disclaim for myself and for the Board of Inland Revenue all responsibility for what it contains.

  Metropolitan Police.
  MR. J. RAMSAY - MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will be prepared to sanction the formation of a Metropolitan Police Association and, if formed, to recognise the association, in order that the members of the Metropolitan Police Force may be able to approach him, or the Chief Commissioner, jointly, and thus be on the same footing as Post Office or other Government servants whose associations are recognised by the heads of the several Government Departments under whom they serve.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): No, Sir. The public safety depends on the discipline and obedience of the police—a fact which I am confident is fully recognised by the police—and such an association might tend to impair the ready obedience to orders which is essential in a highly disciplined force. The police can and do submit their grievances if they have any to the Commissioner and through him to the Home Secretary, and the admirable character and services of the force constitute an added claim for the prompt consideration of all reasonable representations which the Commissioner and the Home Secretary are always ready to give to them.

  Lambeth Licensing Prosecution.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement by a police inspector in a recent case at the Lambeth police court to the effect that the Commissioner of Police had issued an order directing that a licensed victualler, charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person, was not to be permitted to have such person examined by a private doctor; and will he say whether such order has been issued, and,
  1302
  if so, whether it has received the sanction of the Home Office.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is a rule in operation to the effect that in cases of drunkenness medical men are called in at the instance of the person charged, but not at the instance of third parties. As a considerable time must always elapse between the discovery of a drunken person on licensed premises and the decision to issue a summons against the licensee, there would seldom be anything gained by allowing a licensee against whom a charge has been made to have the person who was drunk examined by his own medical man. To meet the case so far as possible, however, there is a rule that when proceedings are likely to be taken against a licensee, the divisional surgeon of police is to be called in to examine the drunken person. The working of the Rules I have mentioned is under my consideration.

  Antwerp Strike.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the 3rd instant a vessel from Antwerp was loaded with workmen at the Royal Albert Dock, London, for conveyance to Antwep to take the place of workmen on strike, each man selected to go being stamped with an indiarubber stamp; and whether he can take any steps to stop this practice in the interests of the good name of the country.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information on this matter other than that contained in the hon. Member's Question, but in any case I have no authority to interfere.

  Calf Lymph Production.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that a sum of £1, 350 is set down on the current Estimates for the hire of calves for the production of glycerinated calf lymph, will he state the number of calves hired for this sum and the average age of calves so hired.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The sum of £1, 350

  1303
  is the amount estimated to be required for the hire of calves during the current year. The number of calves hired will depend on the number found to be necessary from time to time during the year, and it cannot at present be stated what that number will be. The number hired up to 30th June last was 203. The average age of the calves hired last year was four months.
  MR. WEIR: Why does the right hon. Gentleman estimate for £1, 350 this year, which is double the amount found necessary for last year? Does he anticipate a terrible outlay for small pox?
  MR. BURNS: I have no reason to assume that such a calamity will occur.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that during the last financial year the Board paid a sum of £860 17s. 6d. in respect of the hire of 505 calves for the production of glycerinated calf lymph, and that these calves were not on hire for more than a fortnight, whether he will explain why the Board find it necessary to pay so large a sum as 34s. for the use of a calf for a fortnight.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Before the lymph obtained from any calf is used, the calf is slaughtered and the carcase andergoes dissection and examination in order that it may be ascertained that the animal was in perfect health and free from any taint of tuberculosis. The amount paid includes a sum for the depreciation of the value of the carcase owing to the post-mortem examination. It has not been found practicable to obtain suitable calves at less terms than those now paid.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the appointment of a Consultative Committee for the Victoria and Albert Museum.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The matter has been having my careful consideration, and I am now in communication with the Treasury
  1304
  about it. I hope to have arrived at a satisfactory organisation in the early autumn, but am not yet in a position to make any statement, as the matter is still incomplete.

  Merioneth Schools Disputes.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the correspondence which has passed between the Board and the Merionethshire local education authority relative to the payment of the salaries of the teachers in the non-provided schools-there.
  MR. McKENNA: This correspondence is still proceeding. When it is complete I shall be happy to lay it upon the Table.

  Education Examiners.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether in that office promotion by merit to the Higher Division or Examiners' Class is absolutely barred to Second Division clerks; whether in the outdoor staff a similar barrier exists in practice between the inspectors and sub-inspectors; whether the examiners and inspectors are appointed by nomination without examination; and, if so, whether he will take steps to modify the existing system of appointment and promotion.
  MR. McKENNA: The replies to the first and second paragraphs of the Question are in the negative, and to the third in the affirmative. The Question in the fourth paragraph, therefore, does not arise as regards promotion; while, as regards appointment, it has been having my consideration, but I am not prepared: to make any statement in regard to this.

  School Accommodation Regulations.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in provided schools, the limit of accommodation sanctioned by the Board is the seating at desks and benches, or 10 square feet of area per child; whether, in non-provided schools, the limit allowed is constantly 8 square feet per child; and, if so, why a child in a non-provided school requires less space than one in a provided school; and whether he can

  1305
  state the number of cases in which additional accommodation would be necessary if 10 square feet were required in every school, and the approximate cost to the rates.
  MR. McKENNA: My hon. friend will find on page 7 of the List of Public Elementary Schools recently issued by the Board of Education (Cd. 3510 of 1907) an account of the principles upon which the accommodation of schools has been settled in the past. Speaking generally, all schools or class-rooms which were originally recognised subsequent to 1890 are assessed on the 10 square feet basis for older children, and on either the 8 square feet or 9 square feet basis for infants. Schools erected prior to 1890 with the aid of a loan were also assessed on the 10 square feet basis, but there are a considerable number of council schools whose accommodation is calculated at 8 square feet per child. I have no information as to the last paragraph, but I am taking steps to obtain it.

  Dundee Postal Staff.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is able to state an approximate date when the revision in the sorting office at Dundee, which has been under consideration for some eighteen months, is likely to come into effect.
  I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided that the telegraph branch of Dundee is overstaffed; if so, how many appointments are to be allowed to lapse, and how many hours overtime were worked in that department during last year; and, seeing that there are several learners, several of whom have service of three and a half years, will he see that they are appointed before any appointments are allowed to lapse and that the four vacancies which exist at present are filled without undue delay.
  CAPTAIN NORTON., for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): It will be convenient to deal with the hon. Member's two Questions together. The settlement of the revision of the Dundee Post Office, a matter of much intricacy, has been delayed owing to the necessity of considering it in connection with questions
  1306
  of a general nature which have been occupying attention. I am unable to mention any approximate date; but the hon. Member may rest assured that the matter will be carried through as soon as circumstances permit. In the meantime I am unable to furnish details on some of the points raised by the hon. Member, and I will communicate with him on the subject.

  Confidential Reports in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will extend to officers of all grades in the Post Office similar regulations to those already in force in the Army, Navy, and Royal Marines, which require that an annual confidential report by superior officers on a subordinate, which is of an adverse character and affects his fitness for his present position or for promotion to a higher one, shall be read verbatim to him by his superior officer; and whether the Postmaster-General will direct the heads of departments to communicate to a subordinate the result of a report which is held to prejudice his chances of further advancement in the service; and, if so, whether a copy of such instructions will be laid upon the Table of the House at the same time they are promulgated.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: As the hon. Member is aware the question of confidential reporting in the Post Office has lately received the consideration of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants of which he was a member, and my right hon. friend will give their recommendations careful consideration. I may add it is somewhat unreasonable to expect the Postmaster-General to answer questions in reference to this Report in a space of a few weeks, considering the intricate questions it deals with, questions which it took the Committee two years to report on.

  Valuation of Scottish Sheep Stocks.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somersetshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the President of the Board of Agriculture has yet come to any decision with regard to the valuation of sheep stocks in Scotland under The Agricultural Holdings

  1307
  Act, 1906; and, if so, will he give this House particulars as to the result.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,: The question to which my hon. friend refers is receiving very careful consideration at the hands of the Government, but we are not yet in a position to make any further statement respecting it. We shall, however, endeavour to do so with the least possible delay. I may add that the question is somewhat more complicated than might be supposed, inasmuch as the answer to be given in each case depends upon the terms of the agreement or lease, and these are by no means uniform.

  The Public Trustee.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in accordance with the provisions of Subection 3 of Section 8 of the Public Trustee Act, the Treasury has required that the Public Trustee shall be a person already in the public service.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Am I to gather from that Answer that, inasmuch as the Treasury have not exercised their statutory powers of requiring that a Public Trustee should be a gentleman already in the public service, they agree with the view of the Lord Chancellor that the chairman of Allsopp's Brewery is the best qualified person available for that post?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I do not know exactly what the view of the Lord Chancellor is. I, at all events, concur in it.

  Neath Land Tax Commissioners.
  SIR D. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Leyson, as clerk to the Land Tax Commissioners for the division of Neath, in the county of Glamorgan, convened a meeting of the Land Tax Commissioners for that division for 30th January, 1907, by advertisement in the London Gazette, but did not send a notice of such meeting to each of the Land Tax Commissioners for such division as provided by The Land Tax Commissioners Act, 1906;
  1308
  whether he is aware that the said clerk alleges that, at a meeting held in pursuance of the notice by advertisement in the London Gazette on the said 30th January, twelve persons were appointed to be General Commissioners of Income Tax to supply vacancies in the list of General Commissioners of Income Tax for the said division; whether he will ascertain if, in fact, any such meeting was held, and who were present thereat; whether, if such a meeting was held, appointments of General Commissioners of Income Tax made thereat are valid; and if the appointments, if any, made at the said meeting are invalid, will he take steps to secure the proper appointment of General Commissioners of Income Tax for the said division.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Act of last session did not impose on the clerk to the Land Tax Commissioners the duty of giving notice of all meetings to each Commissioner. The Act directs that this notice is to be given in such manner as the Treasury may prescribe. It is true that the Regulations which the Treasury issued under the Act have now imposed this duty on the Clerk, but at the time when application for this meeting was made to the Board of Inland Revenue and indeed when the meeting was actually held the Treasury regulations had not been issued and the meeting was accordingly convened in the ordinary way, after notice had been duly inserted in the Gazette. In these circumstances the Board of Inland Revenue have been advised that the appointments made at the meeting were valid.

  Customs Statistical Assistant Clerks.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a Treasury letter, dated 4th June, 1907, has been communicated to the assistant clerks (new class) in the Statistical Office, Customs, threatening them with punishment unless they withdrew the charge they have made that the conditions under which they were induced to enter the Civil Service are not being observed; whether the assistant clerks in reply have fowarded a memorial to the Commissioners of Customs for transmission to the Treasury in which they directly traverse the accuracy of the statements contained in the Treasury letter, repeat their charge, and attach

  1309
  copies of official documents in substantiation of their statements; and, if so, whether this reply has been received at the Treasury.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: NO threat of punishment was held out in the communication to which the hon. Member refers. The Treasury have merely declined to consider any applications from the clerks in question for special promotion, until the charge of a "breach of faith" has been withdrawn; and I see no reason to depart from that decision.

  Civil Service Old Writers.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the old writers who have been recently discharged from the Civil Service average over seventy-five years of age and over thirty-five years service; and whether he will grant them any further gratuity beyond £100 each.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The subject of these old writers was fully dealt with by my predecessor last year both by way of Answers in this House to Questions by my hon. friend, and by correspondence. I fully concur in the view which he took of the case, and I fear that I must decline to re-open the question.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman apply to these cases the precedent set in the cases of Lord Roberts and Lord Cromer?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Select Committee on Post Office Servants Report.
  MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is as to a statement by Mr. W. B. Cheesman, of the Fawcett Association, that the Report of the Hob-house Committee was so revised by the Department before its presentation to Parliament as to make it unrecognisable. I wish to know if there is any foundation for that statement.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE POR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, ): I have seen the statement referred to. Mr. Cheesman was a witness before the Committee on behalf of the Fawcett Association, which is the organisation of the sorters in London. There is absolutely no truth in the statement attributed to him that the Report was sent to the Department for revision, or that it was revised by them. I, as Chairman of the Committee, prepared the Report in accordance with decisions taken upon each class of evidence, within a few days of hearing the witnesses thereon; though the task of summarising and collating the decisions necessarily occupied a long-period of time subsequently. There is no substantial difference between the decisions thus originally taken and those embodied in the Report, though, as the House will understand, decisions taken on very numerous and complex scales of pay were and could be only provisional, and required in some cases modification, and in others augmentation, when the earlier decisions came to be reviewed in the light of the later ones. Calculations were made for me by the financial experts as to the total cost of each alteration in the conditions of service or scales of pay, though, as I have pointed out, these were not permitted to affect the Draft Report. This was done with the approval of my colleagues, though the results were expressly not communicated to them, lost bias from financial considerations should subsequently be suggested. I would further mention that it is expressly pointed out in paragraph 530 of the Report that the Department were asked to work out the details of a scheme, the principles of which were originated by the Committee. The scheme subsequently presented by the Department was considerably altered in the Draft Report, to the advantage of the staff. A further statement has appeared in the Press that before the Report was submitted to the Committee, copies of it were sent to the Cabinet. This statement is without any foundation or truth. No copies of the Report were given or sent, so far as I know, to anyone save members of the Committee. If copies of the draft or completed Report have reached anyone before the Report was laid on the Table, they were procured by improper and underhand methods, without my knowledge and against my wish, and, as I am assured, contrary to the desire of the other members of the Committee.

  Deceased Wife's Sister Bill.
  LORD R. CECILasked the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions what was the number of petitions presented for and against the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill.
  MR. H. J. WILSONreplied that one petition had been received in favour of the Bill; 129 against, bearing 7, 724 signatures.

  Irish Teachers' Grievances.
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has recommended to the consideration of the Education Board the grievances which national school teachers suffer under by the abuse of the arbitrary power of dismissal vested in the managers: and, if so, can he state with what result.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Yes, Sir, I communicated to the Commissioners of National Education an expression of the Irish Government's opinion that, if it were at all possible, effect should be given to the desire of the teachers for some protection against arbitrary dismissal. The Commissioners subsequently informed me that they had specially considered the matter. They think it desirable that a referee should be available in the case of dismissal of teachers, and two out of the four forms of agreement between managers and teachers which are in use provide for the appointment of a referee. The Commissioners, however, hold that they have no power to compel managers to adopt a form of agreement containing that provision.
  In answer to a further Question—
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Commissioners submit these forms of agreement, and use such influence as they have to persuade the managers to adopt one form or the other, but they have no power to compel them to do so.

  Irish National Education Board.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the dates on which meetings of the
  1312
  National Education Board have been held between the 1st July, 1906, and 30th June, 1907; the names of the Commissioners present at each of these meetings; the number of meetings attended by each of the twenty Commissioners during the twelve months in question; and the remuneration in the way of salary or expenses, etc., paid to each Commissioner for each meeting attended.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to this Question consists mainly of a lengthy tabular statement which it would be more convenient to publish with tonight's Votes, and with the hon. Member's permission I will adopt that course.

  Knox Estate, Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenantry on the Knox estate, situate in Geevagh, near Rivers-town, in the county of Sligo, have recently endeavoured to purchase their holdings from the landlord, Utred A-Knox, Esq.; whether he is aware that these offers of the tenants have been rejected by the landlord, who is an absentee; and whether, seeing that the landlord refuses to sell only on the basis of prohibitive prices, the Estates Commissioners will be asked to intervene with the view of bringing about a sale in this case.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information in respect of the estate referred to. If, however, it be the case that the parties have failed to agree as to terms of sale, the Commissioners will, on being furnished with particulars, consider whether the case is one in which they might usefully offer their services as conciliators under the regulations.

  Irish Teachers' Civil Rights.
  MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have taken any action in the direction of carrying out the Chief Secretary's recommendation in favour of restoring civil rights to the teachers.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply is in the negative. For full particulars I would refer to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Kerry on 13th May.†

  Irish Education Code.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will ask the Commissioners of National Education to make arrangements whereby their codes and syllabuses will be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons for, say, one month before coming into operation.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it has never been the practice to place upon the Table of the House of Commons their codes and syllabuses, and that they see no reason for making a new departure in the matter.
  MR. SLOAN: Will the right Gentleman say why they object?
  MR. BIRRELL: They simply stated that it had never been their practice. I think, however, it would be a desirable thing if they were to do it.
  MR. BARRIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Commissioners to that effect?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will do my best to ingratiate myself with that body.

  Lismore Union Clerkship.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the appointment of an uncertificated bankrupt to the clerkship of the Lismore Union; whether the person appointed was connected with the Tallow conspiracy; and, if so, whether there is any precedent for the appointment of an undischarged bankrupt to such a position.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that the clerk in question was, more than four years ago, in company with a number of other persons, cast in heavy damages in a civil action for what was known as the Tallow conspiracy, and was made a
  † See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 581.
  1314
  bankrupt in respect of the judgment debt and costs. I am not aware of any former precedent, but the Local Government Board, after full consideration and seeing the clerk in question, have not thought fit to refuse their sanction to the appointment.
  MR. ASHLEY: May I ask what circumstances have arisen to justify that action in view of the fact that the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Bryce) refused to sanction the appointment of a man guilty of a criminal conspiracy.
  MR. BIRRELL: Since that time the case has received fuller consideration.
  MR. ASHLEY: Does he remain an undischarged bankrupt?
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Gentleman does not say that at all, but there are circumstances connected with every case which require consideration and the debt in respect of which this man was made a bankrupt was of such a character as to amount to the perpetual exclusion of him for life from any such service as this. After full consideration the Local Government Board came to the conclusion that they saw no reason why, in this particular case at all events, sanction should not be given.
  MR. ASHLEY: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not deny that the man was guilty of a criminal conspiracy?
  MR. BIRRELL: No. Damages were recovered in the civil action.
  LORD R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what were the reasons given by the Court for declining to give him his discharge in bankruptcy?
  MR. BIRRELL: I should like to have notice of that Question. But I quite agree that the refusal may have been made when application was made to obtain his discharge, but even as to that I am not quite sure. All I can say is that I gave the matter a most careful consideration. I have seen the gentleman in question. I placed myself in communication with him and I came to the conclusion that he was a perfectly qualified person to discharge the duties of this office to which he was nominated, not by me but by the Board.

  Ballindereen Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, Mid.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received information respecting the firing at Patrick Sheehan, of Ballindereen, when returning from Galway on 5th August; whether Sheehan was wounded; whether he has been fired at previously; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir. Patrick Sheehan was fired at when returning from Galway on the night of the 5th August. He received several grains of shot in the hand and leg. He had not been fired at previously, but his house was fired into upwards of a year ago. No arrests have been made in connection with the present outrage. The night was dark and Sheehan did not see his assailants.
  MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why no arrests have been made? Have the police made no endeavour to make arrests?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, the police have made every endeavour, but if you are shot on a dark night by persons you do not see it is not always possible to make arrests.
  MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.): Are there so many suspects in this district that the police have no idea as to possible identity?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Borrisokane Cattle Driving Prosecution.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Borrisokane petty sessions on 7th August in connection with the charge against twenty men of illegal assembly, trespass, and driving cattle off the grazing lands of Lisnagower and Spring Park; will he state the result of the prosecution and how many magistrates were on the bench; and what further proceedings are to be taken.
  MR. BIRRELL: There were two cases of unlawful assembly for hearing at the petty sessions referred to, and there were fifteen defendants in one case and eleven
  1316
  in the other. One case was fully heard, with the result that the bench was equally divided in opinion, and the case was therefore adjourned. Owing to the lateness of the hour the second case was also adjourned. The Court consisted of sixteen magistrates. The cases will be heard at the next petty sessions on the 4th proximo.

  Ahascragh School.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some time on the 5th and 7th instant the Weston schoolhouse, at Ahascragh, near Ballinasloe, which is used as a parochial hall, was broken into and wanton destruction committed both to the building and its contents; and whether the police have any clue as to the motive for the outrage or the perpetrators.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

  Ballyshannon Cattle Driving.
  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 gates were removed recently from a grazing farm near Ballyshannon, and a thick stone wall levelled and the cattle driven off the lands; whether police have been drafted from this neighbourhood for service in Belfast; and whether the authorities have any information as to the perpetrators or the object of the outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the facts are as stated in the Question. Three constables were recently transferred from Ballyshannon to the north of Ireland, but their places have been filled up. The police have not succeeded in tracing the offenders.

  Ballinamore Disturbances.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances connected with a charge brought against thirteen men at Ballinamore, county Leitrim, of resisting the service of writs; is he aware that the men were armed with pitchforks

  1317
  hedgeknives, scythes tied on the tops of stakes, and other implements, and they successfully defied the officers of the law; will he state the result of the prosecution; and whether he is aware that many magistrates are afraid to do their duty in such cases.
  MR. BIRRELL: At Ballinamore Petty Session, on 27th July, proceedings were taken by the police against thirteen men with the object of requiring them to find sureties to be of good behaviour. The evidence was to the general effect stated in the Question. The magistrates by a majority refused the application. I am not aware of any foundation for the suggestion contained in the concluding part of the Question.

  Tullamore Grazing Farm.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Estates Commissioners, some fifteen months ago, completed the purchase of a large grazing farm, the property of Messrs. Denning, about four miles from Tullamore, and divided it among adjoining small farmers without payment, but subject to purchase annuities, and that one of these tenants has just sold his allotment for £100 while retaining his original farm; and whether, seeing that the fact that the allotment is now in the possession of one occupier and the farm in that of another has defeated the purpose of the transaction, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what action in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of a sale by any of the purchasers in question, but if the hon. and learned Member will give the name of the person to whom he refers, the Commissioners will make inquiries in the matter.

  The Belfast Riots.
  MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any further information to place before the House with regard to the condition of affairs in Belfast.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am glad to be able to report that from information I received last night it was quiet in Belfast and
  1318
  things are looking well this morning-Representatives of the Board of Trade have arrived and are busily engaged in holding a conference. I have every hope that a speedy agreement may be arrived at.

  Loch Shieldaig Salmon Prosecution.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the expenses incurred in the prosecution of two men for being in a boat at sea at Loch Shieldaig, Ross-shire, on the 14th and 21st May, on a charge of intent to take salmon, were defrayed by the Local Fishery Board, will he state the names of the members of that Board and when it was constituted.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Board, which was constituted in 1888, consists of Mr. Murray of Loch Carron, and the Earl of Lovelace.

  Closure by Compartments.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the views expressed by Members of all political Parties and by members of the Government on behalf of the Government as to the defects and disadvantages of closure by compartments, he can make any announcement which would lead to at least the hope that he will ask the House early next Session to consider the establishment of a Committee of Public Business.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMBPELL-BANNERMAN,): The matter will be duly considered during the Recess.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill): Sir Samuel Scott; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Gibbs.
Report to lie upon the Table.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL [LORDS.]
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 306.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 315.]

CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 307.]
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 316.]

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

POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 308.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 308.]

NEW BILLS.

  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  "To enable Women to vote at Parliamentary Elections," presented by Mr. Dickinson; supported by Sir Charles M'Laren, Mr. Burt, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Howard, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald,
  1320
  Mr. Hart Davies, Mr. Charles E. Price, and Mr. Charles Roberts; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 319.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (WATER RIGHTS) BILL.
  "To empower Local Authorities to acquire Water Rights otherwise than by agreement," presented by Mr. Leif Jones; supported by Mr. Brace, Mr. Luke White, Mr. Shackelton, and Mr. Charles Roberts; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 320.]

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MR. WEDGWOOD*MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme) moved an Amendment providing that where a council proposed to purchase land compulsorily under the Act it might submit to the Board an Order "for the compulsory purchase of the land specified in the Order." The effect of the alteration, he said, would be to put the purchase of land by the local authorities for the purposes of small holdings on all fours with the hiring of land for small holdings. As far as the hiring clauses of the Bill were concerned, the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 was no longer operative, and the first schedule alone governed the price which the arbitrator had to give. All he desired by the Amendment was to confer the same power on local authorities in respect of the purchase of land. The Solicitor-General in his speech had pointed out that these purchase clauses, governed by the Land, Clauses Consolidation Act, had been oppressive to railway companies and municipalities. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had used a stronger word than "oppressive"; he had said that the clauses were strangling railway and municipal enterprise. At all events, it was notorious that under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, railway companies and municipalities, going to arbitration, had to pay a price for land which was far in excess of its value. He would like to give hon. Members a single instance of this. A learned King's Counsel in that House had told him that one of the first cases he

  1321
  conducted was that of the North Eastern Railway, who desired to alter two level crossings at Bridlington, and in order to effect this change the company required the use of the land about the crossings to make a temporary way for the public. The actual value of these pieces of land was about £10 apiece, but a claim was put in for £5, 000. The matter went to arbitration and, despite the expert witnesses called by the company, judgment for £2, 500 for each piece was given. This sum the company had to pay before they could acquire the land. That was an example of the working of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and yet it was under that Act that they proposed to restore the land to the people. He would appeal to all hon. Members who were anxious that the Bill should be a success, and that the small holdings established under it should be successful, to vote for the Amendment. It was not possible to conceive any small holder being successful who started burdened with the excessive price he would be called upon to pay for his holding under the present purchase clauses of the Act, or with the heavy rent based upon such excessive price. A small holder who had to pay for interest and sinking fund upon three or four times the market value of the land could not possibly hope to succeed. Hon. Members might say that so far as the present Bill was concerned the Lands Clauses Act of 1815 was modified by the directions contained in Schedule 1, and this then prevented any chance of those excessive prices. That was evidently not the opinion of the Solicitor-General, who did not put much faith in the schedule in his speech yesterday. And the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was obviously of the opinion that the schedule was not of much importance; for he accepted an Amendment in the schedule making the words governing purchase the same as those governing the hire of land, and in doing so, he said the Amendment was of no importance whatever and was perfectly innocent, but as it would do no damage, the Government might accept it. The Government and the Opposition knew that such a direction in the schedule was absolutely inoperative, because until the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 was abolished all the directions and qualifications in the schedule might be treated as so much
  1322
  waste paper. It might be said that he was only discussing compulsory purchase and that this only led to arbitration and excessive prices, whereas, under the Bill, in most cases purchase would be by agreement. If that were the argument he would point out to the House that railways and municipalities, and all those who paid high prices for land, had also every opportunity of purchasing by agreement. They did not go to arbitration and pay ten, twenty, perhaps thirty, times more for the land than it was worth simply for the love of the thing. They had to pay that high price because the agreement price was governed by the price which could be obtained under arbitration. Therefore, whether local authorities were purchasing small holdings, or railway companies were buying land for level crossings, or municipalities were acquiring land for schools, in all these cases they would be forced to pay arbitration prices for the simple reason that the agreement price would be based on that arbitration price. All hon. Members who desired to see the purchase clauses in the Bill work satisfactorily ought to vote for his Amendment. It was only by voting for such an Amendment that it would be possible for the purchase clauses of the Bill to be of use. Let hon. Members remember that they had in course of passing into law a Valuation Bill for Scotland, and they also hoped to pass a similar measure for England, which would have the effect of fixing the capital market value of the land. By such a measure they would have a sure and certain guide for the purchase of land for purposes of public utility. A short clause such as he proposed in his next Amendment, fixing the price paid for small holdings and allotments at the price fixed for the valuation of that land would give them a basis to work on and would free them from the shackles of the Act of 1845, substituting in its place a fair, uniform, and general basis. But the Solicitor-General argued that this was pre-eminently a hiring Bill, not a purchase Bill. And yet what were these hiring clauses worth? As they stood, county councils could not hire land for more than thirty-five years, and at the end of that period the landlord could resume possession, and all the capital which the local authority had invested on the land, the improvement also which would be the result if the

  1323
  small holding were a success, would revert to the landlord. The sinking fund and interest upon that capital, which on account of the short period of the lease were sure to be heavy, would have to be paid by the tenant. Therefore it amounted to this: If the county council hired land they must avoid putting into it invested capital, for the reason that neither they nor the tenant would get the value of it, but, instead, it would be enjoyed by the landlord. He knew that there was a special clause which gave the local authority the power to renew the lease at practically the same rent at which it was first obtained, and that a valuer was not to give the landlord any increased rent on account of improvements carried out by the county council or the small holder; also that he was not to increase the rent on account of the success of the holding or of the holdings in the neighbourhood. But this clause was only operative where the hiring was compulsory and did not apply in cases where the holding had been hired by agreement. Everyone knew that the compulsory hiring powers contained in the Bill had only been put in to act as a screw, and that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the hiring would be done by agreement. In all cases where there was an agreement the State would have absolutely no prima facie right to renew the tenancy. It was an important point which he hoped the Government would realise and alter before the Bill became law. He trusted that they would make a condition that the State should have the right to renew a tenancy which had been acquired by agreement in precisely the same way as if that tenancy had been acquired compulsorily. In the matter of hiring tenancies he would especially advise county councils and local authorities not to hire by agreement but compulsorily, and above all never to hire where there was likely to be any building. Local authorities should be very careful before they burnt their fingers with any land which was likely to be wanted for building purposes and where, hired by agreement, the landlord could resume possession. When resuming possession the landlord would pay compensation to the local authority, who in its turn, would pay compensation to the small holder, but in every case where such resumption by the landlord took place it would
  1324
  be the poor local authority who would lose on the deal. It was bound to be so, because the landlord would compensate the local authority under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the compensation under that Act was very small indeed, whilst on the other hand, the local authority would have to compensate the tenant under the Market Gardeners' Act, which, of course, was extremely high compensation. Thus the House would see that the small holder would come out of it very well, because he would get ample compensation; so would the landlord, because he would only pay a nominal compensation and would resume possession of his land; but the local authority, getting no advantage, would yet have to pay the most fie thought it was not yet too late for the Government to consider these difficulties and alter the Bill so as to avoid them. He had pointed out the defects in the hiring clauses of the measure and he appealed to the House, in view of them, to consider whether it would not be worth while to make the purchase clauses stronger and more operative than they were at present. If the Government accepted his Amendment there would not be the slightest difficulty in doing this. They would simply strike out of the Bill the Act of 1845, which hampered our railway companies and municipalities at the present time and would hamper that development of small holdings. Unless that were done the measure could never be a business proposition. He begged to move.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES (Carnarvonshire, Eifion),in seconding the Amendment, said that if small holdings were to be successful it was absolutely necessary that they should be secured at a price which would enable the county council to let them to the tenants at an economic rent. That meant that the land must be obtained by the county council at a price dependent only on its value as agricultural land. In legislating on this question, it must be remembered that there was no magic about small holdings. The tenant had to depend for profit solely on the character of the land, the labour and capital he put into it. This Bill threw on the tenant the duty of repaying all the money that had to be paid by the county

  1325
  council to the owner, because it was expressly provided that no part of the loss or expense was to be borne by that body, and it must therefore be ultimately paid by the occupier. For that reason it was essential that the machinery by which the land was to be acquired should be the simplest and most inexpensive possible. He did not think any lawyer would challenge the statement that the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 provided a most expensive method of ascertaining the value of land or of obtaining land, and it was most essential that the county council should acquire land in a simple, inexpensive and effective manner.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 11, line 36, to leave out from the word 'order' to the end of Clause 26, and insert the words 'for the compulsory purchase of the land specified in the order'"—(Mr. Wedgwood)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 38, in page 11, stand part of the Bill."
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,)said he did not think it was necessary to follow in detail the hon. Member's speech, which really was appropriate to a Motion for the rejection of the Third Reading of the Bill. He would explain in a few words why it was necessary to retain certain powers of the Lands Clauses Acts which they had kept in the Schedule, and he thought he would be able to point out how greatly they had varied the procedure which otherwise would have had to be followed if the Lands Clauses Act had been left untouched and applied as a whole. It was necessary to have certain clauses of the Lands Clauses Acts in this Bill in order that they might deal with some of the limited owners, who would naturally crop up in these transactions, and in that they were following the precedent of Section 9, Subsection 4, of the Act of 1894. They were requisite also for procedure, for notice to treat and to quit, and for specifying the persons who were entitled to compensation, and the method by which that compensation might subsequently be obtained. If they had not applied those clauses in the schedule they would have to had add another dozen
  1326
  or twenty clauses to the Bill setting out certain parts of the Lands Clauses Acts. Those Acts were not applied to the hiring clauses, because they were not applicable to hiring. The Lands Clauses Acts nowhere took any cognisance of hiring by compulsion or agreement; it applied only to the purchase of land by compulsion. If the hon. Member would look at the schedule—and he was afraid that the hon. Gentleman had not studied it with that care which he would have expected of him—he would find that they had incorporated the Lands Clauses Acts subject to the necessary adaptation for the objects they had in view. The Lands Clauses Acts as a whole were as great a bugbear to him, if possible, as they were to the hon. Member himself. They had been so from the first, and he took particular credit not only to himself, but also to those who had acted with him, for the way in which they had evaded the difficulties and the expenses they would have been put to if they had adopted the Lands Clauses Acts as a whole. Did the hon. Member realise what were the limitations they had made on the operation of those Acts? First of all, they had a definite clause omitting all compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. Then they had set up a much simpler form of arbitration by a single arbitrator appointed by the Board. They had got a subsection in the schedule specifically excluding counsel and expert witnesses save in exceptional cases, and a provision that there should be a scale of costs prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. He did not think they could go further in prescribing the cheapest possible method of acquiring land at a fair price. The hon. Member had stated that the landlord could resume, possession at the end of thirty-five years, but, by a subsequent admission, he said that he was incorrect. It was Certainly a matter on which hon. Gentlemen opposite became rather heated, that the landlord had no right to resume possession at the conclusion of the lease, so long as the county council wished to renew.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Is not that so where the land is hired compulsorily? Where it is hired by agreement—
  MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT said if the hon. Member had not interrupted him he was

  1327
  going on to explain, of course, that this was the case only where the land was taken compulsorily. By varying and limiting the clauses of the Lands Clauses Act, an enormous amount of repetition of clauses which otherwise would have had to go into the Bill, had been avoided; and he was convineced that they had got the cheapest possible method for the acquisition of land—a cheaper method than had ever yet gone into an Act of Parliament, and he must retain these words for the purposes for which they were included.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. WEDGWOODnext moved an Amendment to the effect that when the capital unimproved value of any land acquired under this Act compulsorily should have been ascertained under any Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed for the general valuation of land for the purposes of rating or taxation, the compensation to be paid for such land should be such ascertained capital value, with any addition for buildings and improvements upon the land, or for severance, that the case might require. He would not, he said, have moved this Amendment had it not been that there was a precedent for putting in an Act of Parliament reference to legislation which might be subsequently passed. Seeing that there was such a precedent, he thought they had here a valuable opportunity of including this provision in the Small Holdings Bill, so soon as the Valuation Bill for England had become law. They hoped next year to get this Bill which would apply to England and Wales, and as soon as that was obtained, they would have a cheaper way of purchasing land for such public purposes as small holdings than the present Bill afforded. He did not think it would be asking too much to require that this valuation of land, ascertained in the best possible way and by public assessors, should be used as the basis on which land might be purchased in the country. He thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that if the Valuation Bill had been passed he would have been glad to embody the clause in this Bill, or, at any rate, that in default of
  1328
  the Valuation Bill being passed, this Bill offered the best method of ascertaining the value of the land. He thought the simpler way would be the embodiment of this clause which the right hon. Gentleman himself approved. In asking the right hon. Gentleman to insert this proviso in the Bill he did not think he was asking him to do anything very great. He did not say that the price should be absolutely the valuation price. All due allowance might he made for severance, for improvements, or for anything, in fact, that the right hon. Gentleman chose to insert in the schedule. All he asked was that the Valuation Bill which would be, he hoped, carried next year, should be used as the basis for the compulsory purchase of land for the welfare of the whole community. It might be said by some hon. Gentlemen that when the Valuation Bill was passed it would then be quite possible to embody in this Act a clause such as this, but that would require a special Bill to be passed in order to allow the new valuation lists to be used as the basis of purchase. What they wanted was, by this small clause, to save all the time and trouble of passing a special Act when the Valuation Bill did become law. Therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider this request, with which, he was sure, he was in hearty sympathy. He begged to move.
  MR. MASTERMAN MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.) seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 38, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that when the capital unimproved value of any land to he acquired under this Act compulsorily shall have been ascertained under any Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed for the general valuation of I and for the purposes of rating or taxation, the compensation to be paid for such land shall be such ascertained capital value, with any addition for buildings and improvements upon the land, or for severance, that the case may require.'"—[Mr. Wedgwood.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. HARCOURTthought the hon. Member knew that he was in general agreement with the principle he sought to establish, but he differed

  1329
  from him widely, as he had done upstairs, as to the method by which he sought to apply that principle. He was certainly prepared to admit that a change was required in the existing valuation for England, but he could not admit that it was reasonable or convenient, even if there were a precedent, though not a very close one, to apply by an Amendment on Report an Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed. It was quite true there was a precedent, the only one which existed, in the Allotment Act of 1887, by which a clause was inserted that the powers under that Act should be exercised by the Local Government Board until the county authorities had been created by the Bill of the next year and had come into actual operation. But that was rather a different thing from inserting a perfectly vague provision as to the whole question of ownership and transfer of land. He did not think the hon. Gentleman had quite considered what this might mean. No doubt in his own mind the hon. Member had a perfectly clear idea of the lines which the Valuation Bill ought to take, and if it varied by a hair's breadth from those lines they would be denounced by him with his usual eloquence. It was always difficult, even for those who were almost infallible, to forecast exactly in what shape a Bill would receive the Royal Assent. They did not know until the Hill became law whether the valuation would be annual, quinquennial, or decennial. He was quite sure the hon. Member would wish it to be an annual one, and he would rather wish that himself. Supposing it turned out to be a quinquennial valuation, under the provisions of this Bill the land would have to be purchased on a valuation which had been made four and a half years previously, and at a price altogether out of date. These were matters which must be considered before they applied things in this way. In reference to the argument that a special Act would have to be passed to apply the Valuation Bill of next year, he might state that there was a precedent which might relieve the hon. Member from so oppressive a bugbear. The Metropolitan Valuation Act of 1859 applied the valuation that was
  1330
  brought into force in respect of income-tax assessments; in fact, it changed the whole of the income-tax assessments, not by a new Act, but by the mere application of the Act when it was passed. He hoped that the application of the new valuation principles when they were carried into law would apply not only to land acquired by the local authorities for small holdings but to all purposes for which land was acquired by local authorities. But he did not see how such a provision could be inserted in this Bill and at this stage of it.
  MR. WEDGWOOD,after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London) said he did not wish to continue the discussion, but though hon. Members on his side did not join in it, he desired to say that it must not be assumed that they approved the general principle laid down either by the hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES*MR. ELLIS DAVIES moved an Amendment to omit the words "nor more than thirty-five years." The words of the Bill, he said, were "not less than fourteen years, nor more than thirty-five years," and the object of his Amendment was to retain the minimum period and do away with the maximum of thirty-five years for compulsorily leasing by county councils. The expenses of adapting the land, erecting buildings, draining, fencing, and supplying water had to be borne in the first instance by the county council, and as this Bill depended for its success on the county councils, he thought it was essential that the conditions under which those bodies worked should be reasonable. The Bill proposed a maximum period of thirty-five years, and the result, he supposed, would be, where the land had been compulsorily acquired for thirty-five years, and it became necessary for the county council to put up buildings, drain and fence and do whatever was necessary, that the local authority would be faced at once with the problem whether it was reasonable to spend

  1331
  money on land that they could only hold for thirty-five years. He put it to Members whether they could really recommend a county council to spend money under a lease for thirty-five years. He pressed upon the Government that unless the county councils could acquire the land for a longer period they would, he feared, be only too well justified in refusing to carry out the Bill by spending public money on the erection of buildings and fencing and draining and supplying water. It seemed to him that the shortness of the lease was fatal from another point of view. The whole expense of not merely buying the land, but of adapting it and putting up buildings and executing other works, though at first borne by the county council, must ultimately fall upon the tenant in the way of rent. It was now admitted that the rent to be paid by the tenant to the county council must not only be a fair rent as for agricultural land, but a rent by way of sinking fund to enable the county council in the short period of thirty-five years to recoup itself for any expenditure in adapting the land and putting buildings upon it. Any Member who had any acquaintance with small holdings knew the hard and uncertain life of the tenant farmer. Had he ever been asked by any landowner in this country, in addition to his rent, to repay the landowner the capital value of the buildings which had been erected on his land and especially to do so in thirty-five years? His submission was that unless the county council had power to acquire land for a much longer period than thirty-five years, and if they had to expend public money on buildings and other works, they would not be able to demand from the tenant farmer an economic rent, and the rent he would have to pay would be so heavy as to make success impossible. But he proposed the Amendment which stood in his name for another reason. He had no land of his own, and he confessed frankly that the power of compulsory leasing did not attract him. It was perfectly well known that it was practically impossible to sell land subject to leases at a rack rent, and it was even more difficult to mortgage it. It seemed to him rather hard, to say the least, that they should compulsorily take from a man his
  1332
  land, and make it for a period of thirty-five years unsaleable and, to coin a word, unmortgageable. It was perfectly well known that in some districts of England, particularly in Manchester and Liverpool, there was a very common method of acquiring land on long leases or subject to rent charges. No money was paid, but an annual rent-charge was created on long leases granted with the result that the land, to all intents and purposes, subject to the payment of this rent, because the property of the purchaser. On the other hand, the person who sold the land obtained a perpetual rent-charge, and immediately became possessed of an interest which had a known market value and for which he could find a ready market or if necessity arose raise money on it. If some such Amendment could be made in the Bill the position of the county councils would be very much better. They would be enabled to acquire land which for all practicable purposes would be their own subject only to the rent-charge. The result would be that the county councils could erect buildings put up houses, fence and drain, make roads, provide water, and do all the other necessary work in connection with a small holding in full assurance, that every penny they spent would ultimately be returned to them in the way of rent. Moreover, they would be able to let the land to the tenant at a rent which would render it possible for the tenant to make the holding a success. If the county council could obtain land under a perpetual lease, or for ninety-nine or 100 years, they would be in a position to let the land to the tenant at a fair rent, plus a small addition necessary for a sinking fund. He begged to move.
  DR. HAZELseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 1, to leave out the words 'nor more than thirty-five.'"
  Question proposed, "That the word; proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the provision to which the hon. Member objected was

  1333
  the outcome of the old game of battledore and shuttlecock between the House of Commons and another place over the Bill of 1894. The original system under that Bill for the compulsory hiring of land was a system of not less than fourteen years, no maximum being fixed. In another place a maximum of not more than twenty-one years was inserted. The House of Commons refused to accept that limitation, and ultimately the limit of thirty-five years was inserted. The proposal before the House would make the initial lease a perpetual lease, and he did not know whether his hon. friend had considered the effect that might have on the price assessed by the valuers. He was under the impression that if the county council took a perpetual lease and paid a perpetual rent they would have to pay a perpetually higher rent, and that would be greatly to the disadvantage of the tenant.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not at all sure that on this subject he agreed with those with whom he usually acted, and, therefore, in what he was about to say he spoke only for himself. He would, of course, have preferred the whole thing to be done by purchase, but he was not going back on that, as the question had been decided by the House. They had now got only to consider the two alternative policies of a lease which could not exceed thirty-five years and of a perpetual lease, or what was called in Scotland a feu. Personally he would prefer a feu both from the point of view of the cultivating tenant and from that of the landlord. Speaking from the point of view of the municipality, if the municipality was to tire land under the Bill for these short terms it would have to go through all the difficulty of fresh negotiations, and possibly fresh litigation, with the landowner at the end of fourteen or thirty-five years. That was not a very simple position. He would have thought, if it were not possible—and he assumed for the sake of his argument that it was not possible—to pay down a capital value, it would at all events be more convenient to enter into a permanent contract, and that the municipality should have all the rights and duties connected with the
  1334
  land which were given to the feuar in Scotland, and in England, as in Lancashire and other places, to the lessee for 999 years. They would then obtain, of course, what was called the unearned increment of the land, if any accrued, and they would have the full rights of ownership subject only to a perpetual charge equal to the original rent value of the land. Now he turned to the tenant's position with the landlord. He understood that the Government held that the plan of the Bill would be far better for the landlord than the plan the hon. Gentleman had proposed. The right hon. Gentleman opposite held the view that it was a hardship to deprive the landlord of any increment in the value of his land that might accrue by lapse of time and the progress of society, and that the landlord at the end of a lease for fourteen or thirty-five years should receive the amount of that increment when a new arrangement was come to. That was an argument which, as far as it went, was well worth considering; but, speaking for himself, if he was not to be allowed to be the practical owner and manager of his estate, he would rather part with the rights of ownership altogether, and if he could not get a capital sum, he would prefer to part with them for a rent-charge with all the security of the county rate. Under the Bill the landlord would lease the land, compulsorily or by agreement, for a term not exceeding thirty-five years. The Government were not going to hand back the land at the end of that time. Their plan was to give the county council practically a perpetual lease with a break at the end of thirty-five years at their will. He could say that in his judgment that was not a satisfactory arrangement from the landlord's point of view. If the Government could not get the capital to purchase the land outright, at all events let them do that which was practically equivalent to it—let them give a perpetual rent-charge, saleable, of course, on good security, and which would entirely exclude for all time the landlord from the management of or any responsibility in connection with the land. He ought not to be left in the ambiguous position in which the Bill left him. He did not know whether at the end of fourteen or thirty-five years

  1335
  he was going to have all his responsibility thrown back on his possibly unwilling shoulders, and would have to go to the cost of revaluing his rights in the land and to enter into fresh negotiation—perhaps fresh controversy—with the local authority. There was an ambiguity thrown over all his relations with the land. He was left the nominal owner under an arrangement to which he, at all events, would think no landlord would care to submit. For his own part, though he could not speak for the landowners, he would much rather lose any subsequent rights he had in the land, such as the so-called unearned increment, than be put in the unsatisfactory, ambiguous, and semi-responsible position in which the landlord was left under the Bill. These were the views he personally entertained speaking from the point of view of the small holder, of the municipality, and of the existing landlord. He spoke in this, however, only for himself, and possibly many of those interested either from the side of the municipality or of the owners of land might take a different view on this complicated question from that which commended itself to him.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that although his right hon. friend had spoken for himself he was disposed to agree with much that had fallen from him. This clause dealt specifically with the acquisition of land by compulsion from the landlord. Looking at the matter as it concerned the landlord, what were the advantages of the proposed Amendment? His right hon. friend had said that if he were to be deprived of his property in the way proposed by the Bill, he would infinitely prefer to be deprived of it altogether once and for all. There was a good deal to be said from that point of view. So far as he was concerned he would prefer a perpetual lease to being messed about by a continual renewal of the lease at the end of a period of fourteen years or thirty-five years. He could not conceive a more disagreeable position than for a landlord never to know whether he was going to have his land thrown back on his hands or not. There was another point of view. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, assuming
  1336
  the Amendment were adopted, he at least was of opinion that the annual rent that would be fixed for a perpetual lease would be considerably greater than the rent fixed under the Bill as it stood. That might be a very good thing for the future owner presumably, but it would be a bad thing for the owner whose land was going to be taken. He could easily fancy that there might occasionally be cases where the land in England—he was not nearly so well acquainted with the system in Scotland as his right hon. friend—was taken from the landlord for the purposes of this Bill in which the landlord might look forward to the possibility of recovering that portion of his estate. He might not wish that a part of his old family estate to which he was devoted should be finally and perpetually severed from his possession even if he were paid cash for it—when he could get it. He had never abandoned the hope that they might be successful in getting an Amendment to this Bill by which, at the end of the first Lease, if the landlord desired it, he might be able to require the county council to purchase the land. If the county council wished to renew the lease that would be proof positive that the scheme of acquiring the land had been a success. It would be most unfair to refuse that right to the landlord. That was the general view which he entertained on the question. He might be foolishly sanguine in the hope that by some means such an Amendment might be inserted in the Bill before it became law. He was influenced by this consideration that if once perpetual leases were accepted there would be an end for all time of any hope of the landlord recovering his land.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid that the Leader of the Opposition had expressed his preference for a perpetual lease to the limited lease provided for in this clause. But he wanted to put the point to the right hon. Gentleman that while that might be satisfactory from the landowner's point of view, how could it ever pay the community to enter into a perpetual lease if they had to pay an annual rent at all approximating the present rent? Land could be bought anywhere at thirty

  1337
  five years purchase, and he supposed that that was the reason a lease of thirty-five years was provided for in the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Unless there is great prospective value.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid that if the county council undertook to pay the annual rent for much more than thirty-five years, they would be paying rent for nothing. If, therefore, there was to be a perpetual lease, the rent charge would have to be much lower than for a short lease, otherwise it would necessarily be a losing bargain from the public point of view.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he could understand that an advantage would be gained by the landowner and the local authority, but he could not exactly see where the small holder—the tenant—came in. As he understood it, the proposal was to adopt what was called in Scotland the feu system where the holder of the feu had the right to sell or devise it. In fact the feuar was practically the owner subject to a perpetual rent charge. That was the proposition which the hon. Gentleman made, but what about the labourer? Was he to have a feu as well—to have a perpetual holding which he could sell, devise or mortgage subject to a rent charge? If not, the labourer, under these conditions, would be very badly off, because if the county council acquired that land under a perpetual lease the rent charge would become proportionally higher. The county council would put an extra rent on the small holder. Therefore the system would be good for the landlord and for the county council, but bad for the small holder who would be a yearly tenant unless he also got his holding in perpetuity and had the same right to selling, devising, and mortgaging as the first holder. He believed that it was the intention of the Act that the county council should let to small holders on a yearly tenancy. That was admitted, he understood, by the right hon. Gentleman during the Second Reading of the Bill. In fact that was the only view which the county council could adopt, because if a tenant was unsatisfactory and had a long lease
  1338
  the county council would not be able, under the Bill, to turn him out of his holding except under exceptional circumstances. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government to give the small holders any security in the form of a lease or simply to hold them as yearly tenants? If the answer was that that was left to the local authority, then he was quite sure that if the local authority was composed of business men, only yearly tenancies would be granted.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid that the right hon. Member for Bordesley had asked where the small holder came in. It seemed to him that the whole conception of this Amendment was for the benefit of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to approve of providing security of tenure to the small holder. It was true that no security of tenure would be given by the Bill to the small holder, but the Bill was a considerable advance towards giving him a right to remain in his holding so long as he continued to work the land properly. The possibility of the renewal of the lease at the end of thirty-five years was not in the mind of the small holder when he was considering at the outset whether he would put his capital into the land. He knew that there were thousands of small holders in England who were yearly tenants but who were practically tenants for thirty-five years.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that that security of tenure was due to the good understanding between landlord and tenant.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid that he hoped that a better understanding would exist between the local authority and the small holder than there had been between the landlord and the small holder. What was wanted was that the small holder should be given his land under conditions by which he could live comfortably. He was glad to welcome the Leader of the Opposition as a recruit in this particular matter and regretted he was not present as a member of the Committee to assist by his cogent arguments the members below the gangway when they were defeated by thirty-two votes to thirteen.

  1339
  He did not see why this should be a bad bargain for the landlord. They wanted the removal of the limitation, and if it were not removed it should be at least extended to fifty years so as to cover the life of the buildings which would have to be put up. There were other circumstances which would seem to show that ninety-nine years would be a satisfactory period. Seeing that the Leader of the Opposition, hon. Members who sat below the gangway, and the Liberal Government in 1894 all demanded the same thing he pressed the Government to accept the Amendment.
  SIR F. CAWLEYthought the Amendment ought to be accepted. In his opinion the county council could rent the land for less rent in perpetuity than they could for a certain number of years. Speaking as a small landowner, and he thought any small owner of land would agree with him, he would rather sell his land at a perpetual chief rent than on a lease to be broken at the option of the county council every few years. He would be able to realise that rent at any moment he liked because it would be an absolute security and one of the best that any trustee could invest in. Therefore it was fair to the landowner and would enable the county council to rent the land at a much lower rent than otherwise they would be able to do.
  MR. CAVEsaid that, exercising the freedom which the Leader of their Party allowed to them, he must say that he could not support the Amendment, because he thought it would operate against purchase, which he considered was the most desirable end. If county councils wished to acquire land for small holdings, they had two courses open to them under the Bill as it now stood. If they doubted whether the small holdings would be a success, they could hire the land for fourteen years or for any period up to thirty-five years. But if they had sufficient confidence in their scheme and desired to hold the land for a longer period then they could buy the land, paying the purchase money at once, and borrowing the amount on the terms of its being repaid under any period up to eighty years. But if the Amendment
  1340
  were carried, the council would have a third alternative, namely, to hire the land for a long term of years, and this alternative might be adopted in preference to a purchase. He thought that the council should be encouraged rather to purchase the land than to lease it, and under these circumstances he would not be able to support the Amendment.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the Amendment was not an important one, but as far as it went he thought it would be well to accept it, because it gave a wider latitude. There was no doubt about it that the landlord would be better off, if he got the same rent in perpetuity than he would be if he only let under a lease for thirty-five years, and therefore, he thought, he would take less rent. There were certain outgoings which had to be calculated upon with a short lease. When the landlord got the land handed back to him there were certain improvements which would have to be done, such as drainage and so on, and that was a responsibility which the landlord would absolutely get rid of if he got the same rent in perpetuity instead of granting a lease for thirty-five years. There was no doubt about it that if one had a perpetual rent of £100, it would sell for a larger price than a rent of £100 a year on a farm for a limited period. Therefore he thought the landlord would be prepared to let the land at a cheaper rate for the longer period than he would on a lease for thirty-five years. In his opinion it would be well to give the county council the power of getting the advantage of a longer lease than was provided for by the Bill, and he thought it would be advisable for the Government to accept the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said he was not by any means certain that there was quite the community of opinion which was supposed between the Leader of the Opposition and hon. Members below the gangway, because the right hon. Gentleman spoke, as an individual Member, in favour of perpetual leases, and said that a perpetual lease was a form of modified purchase. He would

  1341
  like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing simply to extend the option of the county council. Looking at the question on its merits he admitted that there was a good deal to be said on both sides, and it was not a question by any means easy in regard to striking the balance of advantage. That which operated with those who proposed the clause was that a perpetual rent would have to be paid, no matter what the subsequent movement of prices might be, and the county council would probably hesitate to commit themselves to a stereotyped perpetual rent which might work out as an increased purchase money. If they spent a larger sum in purchase money the land would still be liable to the right of resumption, and when all the arguments were taken into account he was of opinion that if they were going to have a hiring system at all it was desirable that they should have breaks in the tenancy. They gave the county council a great advantage—the county council had a right to renew and the landlords could not contest it. So far as security of tenure was concerned, the county council had a right to insist upon it. Therefore, although it was a matter of doubt, it seemed on the whole that it was to the advantage of the county council that the present system should obtain rather than the new system proposed by the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that as the debate developed the importance of the Amendment increased rather than diminished. He quite agreed that a one-sided provision for hiring in perpetuity would not be a fair arrangement. If this advantage was to be given to the county council, it was only fair that it should also be given to the landlord, who should be entitled to require a lease to be renewed in perpetuity. But if that were done another question would arise, and one point of great importance put by the mover of the Amendment and referred to by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had not been touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. That point was that if the county council were to take a short lease they must charge
  1342
  the tenant such a sum as would recoup them for the expenditure incurred for equipping the holding, and therefore the charge would be heavier. That was a very important point, and he thought they ought to know what the answer of the Government was to it. If there was to be any considerable expenditure in order to start the small holder in a satisfactory way under a short lease the charge on the tenant must be very onerous, and he was curious to know how the Government met that criticism. The Solicitor-General had suggested that the proposal in the Amendment would lead to the rent being higher than an agricultural rent under a short lease system. He did not understand why that should be so. He agreed that the security offered by perpetual rent was so much better and more marketable and more easily dealt with for the purpose of rasing money than an ordinary agricultural rent that a perpetual rent should be something less than an agricultural rent. The only thing that could make it more would be the prospective increase in the value of the land. If agricultural land was taken for fourteen or twenty-one years and that land had a certain, rather remote, prospective building value, the rent of the land for the next fourteen years might be no more than the ordinary agricultural rent. It was only where there was a prospective building value in the near future that the rent could be more than the agricultural rent. But that could never be, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out, any prospective building value would be dealt with under the powers of resumption and not in the lease. Therefore he could conceive no circumstances which would tend to make a perpetual rent charge greater than an agricultural rent. Where land was likely to be resumed for building purposes the perpetual rent charge would be of no value.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid it was perpetual against the county councils. Only the landlords could resume.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was of no advantage from his point of view, and it was not a system that would recommend itself to the county

  1343
  councils or the landlords. If a perpetual rent charge was fixed they would have in such cases as that to introduce some modification which removed the power of resumption. He did not think the system as proposed in the Amendment and explained in the speech of the mover was applicable to building land, having regard to the other conditions in the Bill. But he did not see why it should not be applicable and advantageous to everybody in the case of agricultural land which had no prospective building value, and where there was no probability of the power of resumption ever being exercised. He believed that if it were adopted in that case the landlord would obtain a readily marketable security such as he would not have under the Bill, and that an opportunity would be given to the county councils to obtain the land at a less price than they would otherwise have to pay for it, and consequently an opportunity of letting the land at a lower price. Hon Gentlemen below the gangway would not perhaps be in entire sympathy with all the observations he had made, and if he voted for the Amendment, and that would depend on the reply of the right hon. Gentleman and what might follow, his vote must be understood to be guided and qualified by the views he had set forth.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he would endeavour to reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman. It was quite clear that where a short lease was taken by the county council the terms of repayment for the buildings and equipment of the land would be very much heavier. If the county council were to take a short lease of fourteen years it clearly meant that in their opinion the matter was ratheran experimental one, and they would probably not proceed to erect expensive buildings on that land. They might lease land adjacent to buildings and attach it to them. A wise county council, and he believed they were all wise, when acquiring land on which building might take place in the near future, would either take a long lease or they might purchase a small quantity of land upon which they would put up the buildings and hire a certain amount of land to go with those buildings.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether it was contemplated that the county councils should purchase frontages and put buildings upon them, and hire the rest of the land and attach it to the buildings.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that nothing of the sort was contemplated. He would like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not at all of the same mind as the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment. He did not want what they wished. The effect of this clause was to give the power to the county councils to hire land for fourteen years or any other number of years. On this question he had no strong feeling one way or the other. But in any case he thought it would entail some disadvantage, and he would continue to oppose the Amendment. He would like to offer a suggestion which had reference rather to the date at which they had arrived and the possible proceedings which might take place if he were to accept this Amendment. It was certain that a mere option to the county council to take a lease for fourteen years or in perpetuity would not be left in this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Why? It had happened before and he might be permitted to argue, though he could not prove what was likely to happen in another place. What would probably happen was that either compulsion on county councils always to take a perpetual lease would be put in the Bill or else it would come back to this House possibly with the figure 35 or more probably with the figure 21. They would then find themselves once more engaged in the old game of battledore and shuttlecock with no advantage to themselves or to the Bill. Under those circumstances he hoped hon. Members would not press this proposal.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYwished to say a word or two on behalf of the landlords who did not want to sell. Up to the present moment the whole debate had been about the landlords who wanted to sell their land. It was said that the Bill would make

  1345
  things better for the landlord because he would be able to mortgage any portion of his property. Naturally the landlord who did not want to sell would desire to take advantage of any opportunity he could have of resuming his own property, and as the Amendment, if carried, would make the landlord's power I of resumption less and interfere with his chance of resuming possession at the end of fourteen or thirty-five years, he certainly would not support it. Scanty and meagre as the justice meted out to landlords was it would be still more intolerant and hard if they refused them the powers of resumption given under the Bill as it stood. It was clear that if a perpetual feu was established the right of resumption for building purposes would still remain. What would happen to building land outside a town? The county council could take it only at the existing agricultural value because of the right of resumption. He had I heard the ominous words of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who indicated that there was a possibility under the Amendment of interference with that right of resumption. He had great fears of the possible tyrannical developments which might easily happen not under the right hon. Gentleman, but under the ægis of those who, in future years, might be his successors. It was not fair to expose to this danger landlords who did not want to sell and did not want the advantage of being able to get a better price or to mortgage their property, but who did desire to retain the right to resume, whenever a fair opportunity offered, possession of their land, which he was sure they could turn to better use in the interests of the community generally than all the county councils put together.
  MR. ALDENsaid the only difference between the landlords whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman represented and those who did want to sell was that one wanted an exorbitant price and the other a fair price. He did not sec why any landlord should be allowed to stand in the way of men who wished to get a living by the cultivation of the land and to increase the agricultural prosperity of the country. He differed from the right
  1346
  hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the effect of increasing the period of years. If it was increased in all probability the price would be increased. It was only necessary to ask those who had had experience to find out that the longer the term of years the more likely it was that they would have to give a higher price. Notwithstanding that fact, he still thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to have accepted the Amendment, because it gave more elasticity to the whole clause. He could not conceive that any possible harm could accrue from cutting out the thirty-live years. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the House of Lords would put more difficulties in their way let him leave it to them; that was their business. It was the business of the House of Commons to make the Bill as good as possible. He doubted whether the House of Lords would find fault with this clause if amended. He felt sure that the adoption of this proposal would make the Bill more popular, and he would support the Amendment if it was pressed to a division.
  SIR F. BANBURYdid not think the landlord would be injured in the way his hon. friend suggested by the Amendment. County councils already had powers to lease land in perpetuity. Surely it was much better both for the landlord and for the county council that any such arrangementshould come to an end at once. Upon the financial point he differed entirely from the view expressed by his hon. friend, who did not object to purchase. What would be the position of the county council which desired to purchase? Of course they would have to get the money; it was true that they would not require a large amount all at once; they would probably want a small sum, and they would go to their bankers for it, and pay interest at the rate of 5 or 6 per cent. They would not make arrangements with their bankers until they had such a large sum as would justify them going into the money market. Supposing the county councils could give a perpetual rent charge, they would not have to go to the market, and they could give it at a lower rate of interest than by borrowing in the market or from their bankers. They would not have to go to the State and

  1347
  compel the State to put their loan on the money market. It seemed to him that there would be no harm in that proceeding, because it was merely an option on their part. Hon. Members who desired to facilitate purchase ought to vote for the Amendment, because it would do away with the difficulty of being obliged to borrow money. They would be able to make their terms by way of perpetual annual payment which would be much easier for them and would not hurt the person who was to be dealt with. Under those circumstances he should support this Amendment.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid he was sorry his right hon. friend had not seen his way to meet those who had criticised this portion of the Bill. They all desired to make the measure a success. It was because they really felt that this extension of the power to county councils to take land for longer periods if they thought fit was necessary in order to supply land at a cheaper rent that they were pressing this point. One of the chief difficulties in the way of a local authority in carrying out work of this kind was due to the obligation to repay capital, and the obligation to borrow capital. He could not help thinking that a county council under the present circumstances of the money market would much rather take land at a perpetual rent than borrow money for the purpose of purchasing. This course would avoid all questions and difficulties in regard to the raising of the money and all obligations in regard to repaying the capital, although in the case of land the repayments of capital might be extended over eighty years, and it would make an appreciable difference in the rent charged. But there was a still more important consideration with respect to the application of capital for the development of small holdings. Under the Bill the Local Government Board was authorised

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brigg, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Branch, James

  Cave, George

  to extend the period to fifty years, but unless the public body had greater security of tenure he felt sure the Local Government Board would insist upon the money borrowed being repaid within a much shorter period than fifty years. That would place a serious difficulty in the way of the local authority letting the land at cheap rents. He hoped the Government would see their way to reconsider this point. He did not think that the presage made as to the action of the other branch of the Legislature need affect the question at all. If that branch of the Legislature intended to give to the landowners the power to compel any local authority to take over land on a perpetual lease they would do so with the Bill as it stood. He thought they would be able to alter that decision if such a proposal were to come back to them; but sufficient for the day was the evil thereof. He thought it would be a good thing it they gave the option to the county council to extend the repayment to any length of time which they thought was best in the public interest.
  MR. WEDGWOODsaid that what they were proposing by this Amendment was to urge the Government to extend a little more confidence to the county councils. If the Government would take their whips off, and allow the Party to vote as they thought fit upon this question, it would be found that the Amendment would receive a large amount of support.
  MR. BECKETTsaid that what they desired was perpetuity, and he failed to see how by voting for this Amendment they would bring that about.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Aves, 165; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 415.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr')

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Radford, G. H.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Clough, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rees, J. D.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh' m

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Lambert, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cory, Clifford John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Runciman, Walter

  Cox, Harold

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sears, J. E.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Crossley, William J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sherwell, Arthui James

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Edwards, Clemert (Denbigh)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Master of

  Maclean, Donald

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Erskine, David C.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'C'rae, George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Taylor, Theodore G (Radcliffe).

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Verney, F. W.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Massie, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herber Jn.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Grant, Corrie

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gretton, John

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wills, Arthut Walters

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Morse, L. L.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Parcras, S.)

  Harvey, A. G. G (Rochdale)

  Myer, Horatio

  Winfrey, R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Napier, T. B.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncaster)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  TELLERS TOK THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pollard, Dr.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Alden, Percy

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gordon, J.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hall, Frederick

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Baring, Capt. Hn G (Winchester)

  Crooks, William

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bell, Richard

  Doughty, Sir George-

  Hendeison, Arthur (Durham)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Black, Arthut W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury).

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hills, J. W.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Brace, William

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Hudson, Walter

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  1350

  1351

  Jowett, F. W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Snowden, P.

  Kelley, George D.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Steadman, W. C.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Summerbell, T.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny).

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Vivian, Henry

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Robertson, SirG. Scott (Bradf'd

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Shackleton, David James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ellis Davies and Mr. Seddon.

  Moore, William

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston) moved to omit the words at the end of Subsection (3) providing that confirmation by the Board of Agriculture of an order under the section should be conclusive evidence "that the order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act." He said the effect of those words if retained in the clause would be that an order made by a county council, even though beyond its powers, and clearly in breach of the restrictions of this Act, when once confirmed by the Board of Agriculture, could not be questioned by anybody. If, for example, an order infringed Clause 30, which imposed restrictions on the kind and amount of land to be taken from the owner, and if that order were confirmed by the Board of Agriculture, it should, he thought, be in the power of the aggrieved party to object. Again, under the schedules certain things were to be done under the powers contained in the Lands Clauses Acts, and if an order were made which violated the provisions of tho3c Acts, in so far as they were applicable to this measure, he did not think the order should become valid simply because it had been confirmed by the Board of Agriculture as having been "duly made." That was a point which anybody ought to have power to raise in a proper manner. He did not think Parliament should get into the habit of delegating to departments powers which really ought to be possessed by the Courts of Justice. If that had been done before, he did not think it
  1352
  should be done again. He begged to move.
  MR. GEORGE FABER (York),in seconding the Amendment, said the illustration which his hon. friend had given in regard to the Lands Clauses Acts was to his mind conclusive that the words objected to ought to be omitted from the subsection. When a matter came before the arbitrator under the Lands Clauses Acts there might be an illegality, and in such a case an order when confirmed by the Board of Agriculture would prevent any of the parties from raising the question of the illegality if these words were retained in the clause. Each question, so far as its legality was concerned, should stand on its own merits, apart altogether from the opinion of the Board of Agriculture as to whether the terms of an Act of Parliament had been carried out or not.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 13, to leave out from the word 'with,' to the end of line 14."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Amendment came too late, because the words which the hon. Gentleman proposed to omit were necessary to the meaning of words already passed. These words were subject to a decision of the Board

  1353
  of Agriculture. The words of the subsection preceding those proposed to be left out were—
  "An order when so confirmed shall become final, and have effect as if enacted in this Act and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with."
  The Government had followed precedent in this matter. It would be most inconvenient if an order when once confirmed, and which had given rise to various transactions in connection with the land, were liable to be impeached on some technicality of, it might be, a trivial or unimportant character which had preceded the confirmation of the order. A strong case had been put by the hon. Member for York where an arbitrator or a valuer had ignored requirements of the Lands Clauses Acts, but in such a case as that it might be assumed that the Board of Agriculture would not be likely to confirm the order. If the Board confirmed the order it would be open for the landlord or anyone concerned to ask the Court an injunction against the confirming of the order. Once it was confirmed it ought undoubtedly to be final. The words in the sub-section were the same as those contained in Subsection (7) of the Act of: 1894, dealing with an almost similar matter. There were also precedents in the Municipal Corporation Act and in statutes passed in 1888 and 1894.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not quite follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He said that once an order was confirmed it ought to be final. If that was so, what was the objection to accepting the Amendment? It was clear that no harm could accrue from the omission of the words. He had a strong suspicion that the words had not been inserted without some purpose. The subsection said that—
  "The confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with."
  But the Board of Agriculture was not infallible, and if the requirements of the Act had not been complied with was the decision of the Board to override the Courts? If the Board happened to be wrong, then under the words of the
  1354
  clause there would be no possibility of getting its decision reversed.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was in error in his application of the words. A landlord who apprehended that there had been an omission on the part of the county council of any proper technicality under the Bill would have an opportunity of informing the Board of Agriculture. If he had a strong case the Board could be asked to refuse to confirm the order on the ground that it was contrary to law, and if it refused to act the landlord might move the Courts for judgment against the confirmation of the order. What the right hon. Member for Wimbledon had referred to was provided for by Clause 30. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that these were entirely verbal Amendments and that he need not be under any apprehension about them.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk) said he was bound to admit that the explanation of the Solicitor-General did not leave him quite satisfied. It seemed to him that there was still a danger of the Board of Agriculture acting in an illegal way, leaving the landlord practically without remedy. The Solicitor-General had said that the landlord could bring an injunction against the Board, but there was no compulsion on the part of the Board to inform the landlord that they were going to confirm the order, and there might be no time to oppose it. That was rather a strong order. He had no doubt that the present Board of Agriculture could be trusted to be careful that the requirements of the Act were complied with, but he anticipated a time when the Board of Agriculture would be in the hands-of persons who would endeavour to avoid compliance with the Act if they could. He therefore thought that the Board of Agriculture should not be removed from the sphere of the ordinary Courts of Justice. It would be quite easy to provide a limit of time within which to make an application for an injunction.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that he had an Amendment to Clause 26 to leave out of line 16 the words "or the creation of any new easement." It seemed to him that from one point of view these words would he beneficial while from another point of view, such as the creation of a right of way, they might be prejudicial. As the Amendment, therefore, did not fully carry out his intention he would not persevere with it.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES*MR. ELLIS DAVIES moved to add to the end of Clause 16: "In assessing the rent to be paid in the case of land compulsorily hired under this Act, the valuer shall not take into account any increase in the value of the land due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood." What he wished to secure for the tenant was that his land should be held at an economic rent. At the present moment agricultural land in this country had two values—one an agricultural value which really belonged to it in virtue of its productiveness, and the other a monopoly value which was created, not by the tenant or the landlord, but by extraneous circumstances. In his own constituency 81 per cent. of the farmers were small holders, and the demand for small was three times as great as for large holdings. The result was that when a large holding was put up for sale it only realised £30 or £35 per acre, whereas as soon as a small holding of from ten to fifty acres came into the market the competition was so great that it fetched from £50 up to £100 per acre. The increased price was really not due to the special qualities of the soil but to the demand for small holdings. He contended that if this measure was to work satisfactorily it was essential that the tenants should not pay to the landlord more than was due to the inherent qualities of the land, and that the valuer in fixing the rent should leave out of account everything except agricultural value. The landlord could not complain, because he was protected; if the land was demanded for building or mining purposes he was entitled to resume it even under the provisions of this Bill. The principle of his Amendment was embodied in
  1356
  Subsection (c) of Clause 27, with regard to the terms on which County Councils could renew their leases, and which provided that in assessing the rent the valuer should not take into account any increase in the value of the holding—
  "due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood."
  For instance, if small holdings were created and succeeded there would be no doubt an increased demand for smaller holdings, and the object of the Amendment was to secure that the valuer should not have the power to take into consideration the fact of that increased demand deciding on the result of other proposed small holdings. He begged to move.
  MR. MASTERMAN,in seconding the Amendment, said that it was only natural and legitimate that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should be impatient with Amendments moved from that side of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman must have recognised that this question would be raised on the Report stage. From the thin attendance of hon. Members at the moment, it might be judged that there was not any conspicuous evidence of interest in the question; but he could assure hon. Members that many persons in the country were extremely interested in it. The associations more particularly connected with the agitation for the principle of betterment were very much concerned with the lack of any such provision as that embodied in the Amendment. When the question was raised in Committee upstairs the Amendment was supported by the Liberal and Labour Members. What was proposed was, in short, to make every endeavour to see that the increased value which was going to be made by the State by the creation of small holdings in any locality should not go to the landlords in the neighbourhood of that locality, but should go to the State or to the benefit of the small holders. That seemed to him to be an entirely fair proposition. There was nothing predatory in such a proposition, and it had been welcomed by the hon. Member for Rye. The Amendment was limited to hiring only, and had been

  1357
  already adopted in a Government Bill In the working of the Act of 1902 if the State or the county council established a colony of small land holders where there had been no small holders before—if the colony failed there was not much to be said, the county council had to bear the burden. But if it succeeded the immediate result was to create an increased demand for small holdings by the small holders themselves, and their children, and by those who had not been fortunate or sensible enough to obtain land for a small holding at the beginning of the experiment. These, seeing the success of the colony, came in and desired to share that success. What was the immediate result? The price of land went up in that neighbourhood immediately, and the small holders, instead of obtaining land at 14s., 15s., or 20s. an acre, found themselves compelled to pay 30s. or 35s. an acre. It was exactly the same problem which they had to deal with in regard to the slum properties in towns. Directly they started upon measures of this kind, it was inevitable that they must send the value of property in the neighbourhood up and double the price which it had cost to make the improvements. His right hon. friend the Member for Bordesley, when they were discussing this subject in Committee—he was sorry he did not support him then, but hoped he would do so now, because here they had a definite business proposal to place small holders on the land—said there was a distinction between small holdings and allotments.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Hear, hear!
  MR. MASTERMANdid not see the distinction. The result in either case was to send up the price of land, not only in the locality but throughout all England, a; they brought in the city or the county council, and it was right that the increased value due to the intervention of those bodies should not flow away to private owners. He did not object to increase of value going to anybody if they earned it. Small holdings consisted very largely of plots of land consisting of five or seven acres, and those who desired to have them and to cultivate them did not move about from place to place as the right hon. Gentleman
  1358
  said. The small holders in East Worcestershire came from the villages in which they resided and they wanted land in those neighbourhoods, and they did not want to go away from Worcestershire or Lancashire or the places where they were born. It was their demand, however, that was sending up the price of land and choking off the extension of small holdings. There was a grave danger that the operation of this Bill after a number of years might be choked by this particular process—by the very success that they achieved, by being compelled to compete against themselves. To prevent further competition, and to prevent the land being sent up in price so that the small holder would have to pay more for it, and have to compel his wife and children to work early and late in order to make a living, some Amendment of this kind should be adopted. It was said it would be difficult to disentangle the interests, but the Amendment of his hon. friend would do this. It ran—
  "In assessing the rent to be paid in the case of land compufsorily hired under this Act, the valuer shall not take into account any increase in value of the land due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood."
  That was what they wanted. He did not think there was anything in the objection that this provision would sterilise transactions in regard to the buying and selling of land. That contention acted not only against betterment in regard to small holdings, but against any kind of betterment at all. He thought, however, that most hon. Members on that side of the House had made up their minds with regard to dealing with the question of betterment both in the towns and in the country, and surely that was not an insuperable difficulty. The land would be sold with certain charges upon it, actual or prospective, which in buying or selling would be accepted in connection with compulsion, equally as other risks were accepted in connection with compulsion at the present time and in connection with the value which the valuer to put on the land. He recognised that the vast majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite had really tried to clear away any real obstacle which might stand in the way of the working of a Small Holdings Bill, but under all the

  1359
  circumstances he begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 20, at the end, to insert the words, 'In assessing the rent to be paid in the case of land compulsorily hired under this Act, the valuer shall not take into account any increase in the value of the land due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood.'"—(Mr. Ellis Davies.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid it was always unpleasant, as it had been his lot frequently that day, to refuse to accept the Amendments of his enthusiastic friends who were so seldom his supporters, but he was sure that they had the conviction in their minds that a Minister had sometimes to take into account some other considerations than those connected with the Amendment which they moved. He had not merely to secure the sulky assent of landowners but their general and willing assent. He had resisted this Amendment upstairs for reasons which had been quoted by his hon. friend but as they had failed to convince him it might be necessary to restate them. The first point was whether these proposals were just or desirable; secondly, were they practically possible; and, thirdly, were they necessary. He believed the acceptance of this Amendment would ensure the hostility of all holders of land and of corporations, charities and colleges, and of anybody who was possessed of it. It would raise hostility not only to small holdings on their own estates but to small holdings anywhere in their neighbourhood or anywhere in their county. This hostility would bring the Amendment into operation against their land were it to be put into the market under any circumstances whatever. Under this proposal a valuer in 1930 would have to find out what was the proper rent in 1907 and 1908, and what was the proper rent then, and that would be in his view impossible. The valuer would not only have to estimate the figures in regard to one county, but elsewhere. If this clause were included they would lose one of the most valuable provisions of
  1360
  the Bill, that rent was to be fixed by a valuer and not through the costly process of arbitration. He was not inclined to agree that there would be any appreciation of rent of land in consequence of small holdings. In the past, he admitted there had been an increase of rent due to the establishment of small holdings, but that had been due to the competitive demand for them due to a restricted supply. There had been no compulsion to acquire small holdings and to meet the demand, and therefore land could be capriciously withheld. But now, under this Bill, there would be no limitation of the supply where there was a demand. There was unbounded power to meet all reasonable demands. Therefore he felt forced to reject the Amendment on the grounds both of practicability and of necessity.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was bound to admit that in his opinion the inferences drawn by the right hon. Gentleman were more likely to be right than those drawn by the hon. Member. The hon. Member had advocated this matter in Committee, but he had not carried his case much further that evening by his comparison of small holdings in various parts of the country, where the conditions of things in one case was not analogous to the condition in another. There certainly was some force in his argument that the principle had been accepted in another clause of the Bill. But he would point out that that clause related to renewals of leases already held. In that case it was possible to form some judgment as to the rise in the value of the land, because there was actual experience to go upon. But generally speaking, he would have thought that the establishment of small holdings throughout the country would tend rather to depreciate the value of land because the greater the number of small holdings the greater would be the competition and the less would be the value of the produce from the soil. The hon. Member had appealed to the House not to put any obstacle in the way of the creation of small holdings. Nothing could be further from their thoughts than to take any action of that kind. But the hon. Gentleman must prove the fact that he was right in his contention

  1361
  that this was a useful provision, and for his part he could not see that the hon. Gentleman had done so, to his satisfaction at any rate. So far as their bona fides were concerned, they gave proof of them in the Committee upstairs, when they accepted these words in the other clause.
  MR. DICKINSONsaid he was glad to be able to say how much this great measure had been assisted in its passage through Committee by the co-operation of those who sat in Opposition. In this matter hon. Gentlemen opposite would naturally support the Government in the line they had taken. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was so convinced of the justice of his objection to this particular clause then surely he might leave the matter to the House to decide, in which case he believed it would be found that the majority was in favour of the Amendment. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of those used thirteen years ago upon the question of betterment. After a good deal of argument they succeeded in convincing a Select Committee of the House of Lords of which Lord Halsbury was Chairman, of the justice of the principle of betterment. That was to say that where an unearned increment was due to the action of a public authority the public authority was entitled to reap some of the benefit of that increment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Amendment was unnecessary because he did not think there would be any increase in the value of the land owing to the action of the local authority. But the essence of the Amendment was that if any actual improvement did accrue to the land it should be taken into consideration. If it did not or there was any doubt about it, no one would suggest that anything should be taken away from the landlord and given to the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in 1930 it would be impossible for any valuer to lay down any rule to guide him as regarded a comparison of rents receivable then and rents receivable now. But nobody would ask that these improvements should be appropriated by the public except where there were small holdings in the vicinity
  1362
  which had brought about the improvement, and there would be no difficulty on the part of the valuer in ascertaining the fact that the increase in value was due to the existence of the neighbouring small holdings. To refer to the last argument, that if any benefit accrued to a particular piece of land by reason of the establishment of small holdings there ought also to be some provision by which a landowner whose property had depreciated by the introduction of small holdings should be compensated for the loss, nobody would object to the inclusion of such a provision. But he failed to realise the need for it, because all they wished to do was to deal with the landowner whose property had improved in value. Even if the landowner could show that property of other landlords had been depreciated in value that was no reason why he should not pay for the improvement created in his own land. Clause 29 of the Bill which dealt with the renewal of the tenancy provided that betterment should then be borne in mind by the valuer. It seemed to him that if this stood alone, it might operate very unjustly to the individual landowner. If they took a holding from the landlord now, they were to put him under the condition that on the expiry of the tenancy he should reap no improved value from the institution of the surrounding small holdings; but other people whose land was not now taken were to be able to appropriate to themselves the improved value which was due to the institution of small holdings. It seemed to him that they were bound to be just all round, and if such justice was not carried out he suggested that there would be a very great tendency on the part of the land owners to hold aloof and object to their land being used in any way for the purpose of small holdings. He need not say that it was with very great regret that they had to differ from the right hon. Gentleman, to whom they were very grateful indeed for having so earnestly and so successfully carried this measure through Committee; still, those who did feel very strongly on this point were forced to express their opposition to this proposal.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the speech to which they had just listened and

  1363
  the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment, disclosed that in the discussion of this question confusion was created by mixing up allotments with small holdings. The two were altogether different things. Allotments must, of course, be in the neighbourhood where the men were employed, for they were of no good if they were a mile or two away. Allotments were very small; in many localities five or six acres of land were cut into allotments, and probably that quantity of land was sufficient for the requirements of the place. But small holdings might be anywhere; they were not confined to any particular part of the county. The county council could range over their whole area for a farm or any land that was to be sold and which they could buy for small holdings. The hon. Member had mentioned Catshill. He thought he knew Catshill and neighbourhood perhaps rather better than he. There were no means of knowing whether that small colony had increased the price of land in the neighbourhood except from this fact, which occurred within the last twelve months, to his knowledge: A neighbouring farm was sold; it was a farm of 200 or 300 acres, and it was bought at a very low price. But of course the county council were not foolish enough to go alongside Catshill to found another colony. They had within the last three months bought another small estate, and that was right away in another part of the county; and he knew it was the intention of some members of the county council to have other small colonies, but not alongside those they had already created. If his hon. friend the Member for West Ham and other speakers would bear in mind that county councils had only to look out for land, they would find that there was enough of it. They need not consider the quality of the land, nor all the nonsense that was talked about small holdings being close to the town, and the labourers requiring every virtue if the holdings were to be a success. All these conditions were violated at Catshill. In fact, if the virtues that were required of an agricultural labourer, before he could have a small holding, were exacted in the case of a farmer, they would soon have a
  1364
  precious number of farms unlet. The expert evidence given before Lord Onslow's Committee by agents and others required these conditions. The agent of Lord Carrington stated that he would not let small holdings except to men of experience in cultivation. In this colony of Catshill, every one of these conditions had, as he had said, been violated; yet the colony had been a complete success for twelve years, and the men were saving money. The land at Catshill was poor, and the price was high. It was about twelve miles from any large city; indeed, all the conditions were unfavourable—the repayment was based on 4 per cent., a high rate. He wanted the hon. Member for North West Ham and those who were of his way of thinking to remember that when a county council wished to buy land they had only to look at the papers to see columns of properties for sale. Then where was the difficulty? County councils could pick and choose throughout the country, and all that was wanted was that the holdings should be within reasonable distance of a railway station, or within carting distance of a large town. His hon. friend had said that these small holdings, by reason of their success had sent up the price of land everywhere. He did not anticipate that there would be such a wide operation of this Act as to send up the price of land everywhere. If they had a system by which they could have 500 Catshills, that would send up the price of land, and he for one would not be sorry for that, because he could show that the price of land in any country was the true gauge, not of the aggregate amount of wealth in the hands of a few, but the only true gauge of the prosperity, health, well-being and good condition of the people. And that was the reason why across the Channel, not so far away as Northumberland, land had twice and three time; the value that land had here, because there were there not 200 but thousands of Catshills; the whole area of France and Germany was covered with Catshills. He for one would be delighted if the same cause sent up the price of land here, because what did it mean? It meant that the price was the result of the increased productiveness. Apart from fruit and wine growing in Germany

  1365
  and France, if they took like for like and area for area, the products of the two countries were twice in value what the products were in this country. Why should they object when the price of land went up through increased productiveness? He was afraid that he took a very national view of this question—too national to go and clip a landlord here and a landlord there. To him the financial question was insignificent compared with getting the people back to the soil on proper conditions. Where did the "patriotism" come in? They ought to take a more national view of the question. It was a question not only of benefiting the labourer and the farmer, but of saving the country and creating a first, second, and third line of defence. If he could have his way he would send out a man corresponding to a recruiting sergeant into the great centres of industry and instruct them to find suitable cultivators of the soil. He would then, through the State and in the national interest, provide them with money on the same principle as he would vote money to build an ironclad or erect fortifications. In talking about small holdings the danger which had been suggested could never exist because they had the whole area to pick and choose from. In many districts they would find land for sale at a very low price indeed. He saw an instance in Devonshire the other day where land went begging at £10 an acre, and it was ultimately sold at £6. an acre. If the Devonshire County Council had bought 500 acres of that land and created small holdings upon it the difficulty would have been solved.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is taking a very unusual amount of latitude in regard to the point before the House.
  MR. NAPIERsaid that if on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would stick to his guns, he would receive a large amount of conscientious support from the Ministerial Benches, as well as the usual official support. Hon. Members must have been struck with the impracticability of the Amendment. Let them consider for a moment a period of twenty years after the Bill had been in force. Supposing the county council
  1366
  then required land for small holdings. A valuer would be called in, and he would have to inquire what the price of land was in that district twenty years be fore. It was not always easy to ascertain the price of land so far back as twenty years. They might have to subpoena all sorts of persons to produce leases which were made twenty years back. The valuer would then have to say how much of the rise in value was due to the creation of small holdings. That would be a most difficult thing to do. Land varied very much, and there was occasionally a period when the price of land was going up owing to a number of causes, but the only cause the valuer could take into account would be the rise in value through the establishment of other small holdings. That was a matter which would have to be arrived at by an arbitrator, and the cost of ascertaining that would add very considerably to the price of the land, and render the whole scheme more expensive. The Amendment itself, if it was really intended to have effect, was not very judiciously worded. Why should the valuer take into account only the rise in value owing to the action of this particular county council? Why should he not consider the action of all county councils? Supposing in the next county a series of small holdings were established, and they had caused the value of land to rise. Why should the valuer take into account the rise in value for the adjoining county, and not the increased value of small holdings in the county for which he was acting? Reference had been made to betterment. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras desired to apply to agricultural land the conditions which had been applied by several Acts of Parliament to London. He did not think the principle of betterment could be usefully applied to land in the country. It had not been very useful in London, and the London County Council had got nothing worth speaking of out of it. For these reasons he strongly distrusted the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind, because the principle was wrong. If when they were going to do anything by an Act of Parliament which would raise the value of land, were they going to say that any rise in value caused by the Act should

  1367
  not be taken into account if the land was compulsorily acquired for public purposes? That might be a good principle, but it was one which it was impossible to apply in practice. It often happened that the value of land went down, and therefore this was a principle which ought to apply both ways in order to be fair.
  MR. WEDGWOODsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham with great interest, and he would like to reply to one or two of the difficulties which had been raised. In the first place there was the question of the practicability of the Amendment, and whether it was possible to decide if the increase in value of any piece of land was due to the small holdings in the neighbourhood. That principle was already, he was thankful to say, established in the Bill as it stood. Clause 27, Sub-section 2, read as follows:—
  "In assessing the rent to be paid under this section the valuer shall not take into account any increase in the value of the holding (c) due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood."
  That provision was added to the Bill in Committee without opposition and referred to the renewal of the leases for small holdings, so that in the case of a small holding or allotment of two acres when the lease expired the rent could not be raised against the council by the landlord for that increase which was due to allotments or small holdings in the neighbourhood. Therefore it was assumed by the framers of this Bill that it was practicable to decide and allow for increase in value due to the success of small holdings. All they asked was that not only should it be practicable to judge of that increased value in the release of two acres, but also when that increase of two acres into five by the addition of adjoining land. In both cases they desired that the success of allotments should not add to the price the council had to pay, or to the price the tenant had to pay to the council. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill objected to the Amendment on the ground of justice and importance. He would take first the ground of justice. He said with a great deal of truth that if they allowed betterment they must also allow worsement. The only satisfactory
  1368
  way out of that difficulty was to tax land values. That did not take into special account betterment or worsement but dealt with both in a satisfactory way. They could not tax land values yet, and therefore they must do the best they could with this doctrine of betterment and worsement. He thought that all hon. Members who understood the question would agree that it was not possible to cause worsement in this case. The case they were considering was the investment of public funds and the increase of population in a neighbourhood. No ease for worsement could ever be made out against the expenditure of public funds in the neighbourhood where those funds were spent. Worsement generally occurred through changing the character of streets in a town, so that the property in the old street which used to be an important street before the new street was made fell in value. There was another factor which, to his mind, was even more conclusive, as to the increase in the value of land due to the extension of small holdings. The careful calculations he had made went to show that land values in nearly every country in the world depended upon the density of the population, and varied with the number of workers in any given district. The more workers there were residing on the land and creating the land value the higher would be that value. The object of small holding legislation was to increase the population on the land, and therefore the result of legislation of the kind proposed in this Bill must be to increase and not decrease the price of land. In this instance therefore they might ignore worsement because it was almost certain never to occur, and they might reasonably take into account the claim for betterment alone. Another objection had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He had said that it was unnecessary to put this clause in because there would be no important rise in the value of land attributable to small holdings. That if land values rose it would be from other causes. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to a case in Scotland where the value had been increased through the land being turned to the cultivation of raspberries.

  1369
  That experiment showed that raspberries could be profitably cultivated. Here it was proposed to spend public money in the creation of small holdings, and the expenditure on that experiment was absolutely going to raise land values, just as the experiment with raspberries raised the value of the land in the case to which his right hon. friend referred. As certainly as these experiments were successful, so certainly were they going to result in betterment which should come back to the State or to the community which gave the betterment. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that small holdings under previous Acts did increase the value of land, but he said that the value of land would not increase under this Bill, because there were compulsory powers involved in it. He argued that previously a landlord could refuse to sell his land for small holdings, and could not be compelled to do so, and that therefore conditions which formerly increased land values were not now applicable. It was argued that they would now, under this Act, see to the proper use of land and the proper extension of small holdings without any rise in land values. The idea that the inclusion of compulsory clauses in the Bill would cheapen land was, he thought, wholly wrong. He asked the House to consider for a moment what these compulsory powers meant. The Government hoped that they would facilitate the transfer of land, and that they would prevent land being held up and badly used, and that they would get the land turned to the best use. The compulsory clauses of the Bill were not only to facilitate the transfer of land, but to facilitate also its best use. He maintained that anything that facilitated the transfer of land and the putting of it to the best possible use must infallibly increase its value. If the facility with which land could be transferred was increased, and if the facility with which it could be put to the best possible use was also increased, it followed that the value of the land must be increased. Therefore he thought that the compulsory clauses would tend to increase the value of land even more than the successful or semi-successful extension of small holdings under previous Acts. That was an economic point.
  1370
  He held that the compulsory clauses did not obviate the risk of increasing land values. The question of betterment had been discussed by the London County Council many times, and the objection had been taken to the principle on the ground that if it were adopted the principle of worsement should also be taken into account. He admitted the force of that objection, but he thought that in this particular case it had as small a force as ever it had. He thought the principle of betterment might be introduced into this Bill in respect of new leases as well as in respect of releases.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he differed from the hon. Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme for several reasons. In the first place it seemed to him an extraordinary hardship that land should be the only form of property which was not to be allowed to receive additional value from any circumstances which surrounded it. If the hon. Member opposite had money invested in the debenture stock of some Colony where gold happened to be found, and if the price of that stock rose from £100 to £110, would he be willing to pay back the increase of £10 as unearned increment to which he was not entitled?
  MR. WEDGWOODsaid that the £100 lent, say, to New South Wales had probably enabled the discovery of gold to be made. He would, therefore, be assisting in making the discovery.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he would be extremely glad if the £100 had such a result. But the fact remained that he of his own option had invested in that form of property and received a large increment of capital from that with which he had nothing to do. Unless the hon. Member was prepared to transfer the £10 to the purposes of the State, he hoped that they would hear no more about the increment that might accrue in the case of land. Too much had already been heard of that theory from those who did not possess land, and who followed a different line altogether in regard to the property which they did possess. The hon. Member had said he was in favour of the principle of worsement. If that was so, it should be introduced into the Amendment.

  1371
  He believed that in many directions the creation of small holdings would considerably lower the price of land. He was perfectly certain that where small holdings were a failure—and he was afraid that would happen in many cases where sufficient care was not taken and where proper circumstances did not exist—the result would be to lower the value of the land which had been worked successfully under larger occupation and with sufficient capital. The hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that density of population always made for an increase in the value of land. There were many cases in which the reverse happened. He granted that if it were density of well-to-do population, the land would increase in value; but if it were a poverty stricken population did the hon. Member think the land would increase in value? He thought it would decrease in value.
  MR. WEDGWOODsaid it would increase, and in proof of that statement he would show the hon. and gallant Member tables if he would speak to him outside.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYexpressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman would at least allow him time to go to dinner before doing so. After all, the only test was the price which the land would bring if put in the market. An estate on which there were small holdings which had not been an economic success, if put in the market, would be found to have been heavily reduced in value. He was not arguing that small holdings might not be introduced with advantage in certain localities, but if the hon. Gentleman opposite wished to be fair, he must look also at the other alternative, and not simply adopt the attitude that land was a proper subject for spoliation and confiscation, which was a general attitude of those who held other forms of property.
  MR. REESsaid he had voted against this Amendment in Committee, and he was not to be deterred from taking the same course now because his name had been included in a "black list" in a Labour paper of those who had voted against it. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras had
  1372
  urged that the increased value of the land should go to the community. What was the community? He took it that the community was an aggregate of individuals, and that it would be contented, flourishing and safe, when the rights of individuals were scrupulously respected. He defied anyone to controvert that elementary proposition. He altogether demurred to the hon. Gentleman's comparison of town betterment with what would happen in the rural districts. The same point was continually taken by the hon. Member for North West Ham. The hon. Member wanted everything reduced to the "Ham standard." In Committee it had been pointed out time after time that that was not the object of the Bill. This Bill was to deal with small holdings, and not with allotments, and there was no use trying to reduce its fair proportions to an urban standard. Though sentiment was a very good thing sometimes, it did not do to be carried away by it in a matter of this kind. It was a very good servant but a very bad master of a man. Nothing was more likely to put the public, and particularly that section the sympathy of which it was most vital to enlist, against the experiment of small holdings than the introduction of such an Amendment as this, which flew in the face of every elementary economic principle. Under it, although there was an increase of value, the valuer was not to take it into account. How could they have economic standards for one class of holders and uneconomic standards for others? The acceptance of the Amendment would be perfectly fatal to the Bill and prevent its having a fair chance at all. The scheme put forward by the Government he believed would have a fair measure of success, but the Amendment, if carried, would deprive it of any possibility of success. It might be taken for granted that this scheme was experimental, and after some I years experience there would be time to consider any necessary modification of it. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would resist the Amendment now as firmly as he had done upstairs, and that he would receive in that the support of the great majority of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, I 227. (Division List No. 416.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanger, H. Y.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  M'Crae, George

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Thompson, J. V. H (Somerset, E.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Valentia, Viscount

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wadsworth, J.

  Massie, J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Waring, Walter

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Morse, L. L.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Nicholson, CharlesN (Doncast'r

  Seely, Colonel

  Younger, George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE moved the omission of Subsection (8). The effect of the subsection as it stood would be that when the county council had given notice to treat and the arbitrator had determined the price or rent, the county council, after seeing the arbitrator's award, might back out of the whole thing on paying the landlord compensation. That was entirely opposed to the existing practice under the Lands Clauses Acts. Under these Acts, when once a notice to treat had been given, the land was bound, and no one could deal with it until the price had been ascertained. If a would-be purchaser came along, the landlord must refuse to deal with him, and so also in the case of a tenant seeking a farm. In such an event, if the notice to treat were withdrawn, no amount of compensation could recoup the landlord, because, his loss could not be proved to an arbitrator, and great hardship might be caused, not only to the landlord, but to the sitting tenant. Let the House consider to what use the council might put this power. Having given notice to treat and obtained an award, they might then say, "We do not like the award, and unless you come down in price we shall
  1376
  withdraw from the whole thing." Thereupon, the owner having made his arrangements with a view to selling, might be compelled to reduce his price quite apart from the merits of the case; a result which would not be fair. The only argument in favour of the subsection was that it was said that by the Act of 1892 the council was bound not to purchase the land unless they saw their way to recoup themselves, and therefore they ought to have power to withdraw from the whole bargain. He did not think that was a sufficient reason for retaining the subsection. Of course the council ought to look forward to recouping themselves, but it was not right that, having made their estimate and found the price was higher than they thought, they should have the right to withdraw. Perhaps they might sustain some small loss, but half of that loss would be borne by the Treasury, and it was right that some loss should fall upon the county council as a penalty for having made the miscalculation. He did not think the county council should be allowed to back out of a liability which they had deliberately incurred. Since his Amendment appeared on the Paper the First

  1377
  Commissioner had put down a proposal to omit from one of the schedules the power of the county council when they gave a notice to treat to give also a notice to quit. He admitted that that proposal would remove one monstrous injustice which would otherwise have been caused by this subsection, because other wise when the county council had given the tenant notice to quit, and he had made arrangements for taking another farm, the county council could have with drawn their notice, thus leaving the tenant with two farms on his hands. That got rid of one argument against the subsection, but even the withdrawal of a notice to treat would disturb arrangements which had to be made a long time ahead. On these grounds he begged to move the Amendment.
  SIR E. BOYLEseconded the Amendment, and said he supported everything that had been said by the proposer of it. The notice to treat I having been served, if the purchasing body altered their mind the one person who should be protected was the man whose land was compulsorily subjected to sale. The procedure proposed for the purpose of the transfer of land was quite different from anything which had yet been brought forward.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 1, to leave out Subsection (8) of Clause 26."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'by,' in page 13, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid his hon. friend had rightly said that under the Act of 1892 a county council, in taking land for the purpose of small holdings, was obliged to take it at such price only as would recoup them for their expenses. That was a proper enough thing under the Act of 1892, which did not contain any provision for compulsory purchase. But it was also desirable now that the Treasury undertook half the loss. It was desirable because under this measure the county council could not frame an estimate, as everything depended on the price and the rent, which were to be made the subject of arbitration, and
  1378
  perhaps there also might be made a claim for severance which would surprise the county council. Therefore they might find themselves, after waiting till the award was given, under conditions which compelled them to go on in contravention of the clause in the Act of 1892. That was, they would be obliged to take the land, but they could not recoup themselves in regard to the necessary expenses. Under these circumstances what was the best course to adopt? To compel them to go on at a loss, or to allow them to withdraw on paying compensation to the owner of the land if he had been subjected to any expense? To compel the county council to go on at a loss would clearly be inexpedient, and he thought they should be allowed to withdraw.
  SIR E. BOYLEsaid the purchaser and every expert, would know very well whether the price was likely to be such as would allow the county council to go on.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the hon. and learned Member must be aware that it was very difficult to find out what the price would be in the case of a claim for severance.
  SIR E. BOYLEsaid that the purchasing body knew perfectly well, and the vendor knew perfectly well, whether there was any claim for severance or any other matter of that kind, but of course they did not know the quantum.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that was his point, they could not know the quantum. They might know the value of the land and its rent, but they could not estimate the price which an arbitrator would give for severance.
  SIR E. BOYLE: They can estimate it.
  SIR W. ROBSON: I do not think the hon. and learned Member would undertake to tell any client of his what an arbitrator would award for severance.
  SIR E. BOYLEsaid the county council would have information on the subject

  1379
  They could ask the vendor and they would know what he asked for it.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that nobody would know what was going to be allowed, and the claim for severance would be enormous in some cases.
  SIR E. BOYLEwished to assure the Solicitor-General that the danger he feared was one which did not exist. In all the new cases under the London County Council Act claimants had to set out what their claim was and how it was made up. Therefore the county councils would run no risk.
  SIR W. ROBSONdid not think that anybody could assume that what a man claimed would be given on award. Because one had the claim it did not follow that they would know what would be the award. There were few subjects about which experts and surveyors differed more than this question of (severance, and the arbitrator had to decide between them. They might in making their estimate act upon excellent advice and perfectly reasonable opinion, the advice of surveyors and lawyers, and yet find themselves very much mistaken. Under those circumstances the question was, should they be compelled to go on at a loss or allowed to withdraw on paying compensation to the owner of the land for any loss which had been caused to him? If the county council withdrew, they were bound to give compensation to the owner for any expense he had been caused. To compel the county council to go on at a loss would obviously be inexpedient, and there was then in his judgment no alternative but withdrawal.
  SIR E. BOYLEsaid that what was now proposed was that if an arbitrator awarded the landlord too little, the county council could take up the award, but if the arbitrator awarded him too much they could refuse to take it up. It seemed to him to be a case of "heads I win, and tails you lose."
  MR. CHAPLINasked when lawyers differed who was to decide. With all respect to the Solicitor-General, it appeared to him as a layman that his friend behind him was right. If the hon. and
  1380
  learned Gentleman was right, they had an admirable and additional reason for supporting the omission of the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that when a case of this kind arose there were only two alternatives. Either the county council was to be allowed to withdraw or they were to be compelled to proceed and to suffer the loss. But the hon. and learned Member had forgotten the other party interested, namely, the person from whom the land was taken and who was to be compensated. What guarantee was there that they were giving to that man anything like the amount of money necessary to compensate him for the position in which he was placed? He had received notice to quit, greatly to his regret, and he saw nothing for it but to make the best arrangements he could. He might possibly have sold his house and given up his home, and perhaps already taken another farm in another place and removed there, and then the thing was to be thrown over at the last moment. It seemed to him that if that were done on anything like a large scale it would be far cheaper for the county council to accept the original loss than to incur the risks of such compensation as would be necessary if justice was to be done in such a case as he had suggested. This was an entirely new departure from existing practice, and he did not see the necessity for it. He would have thought it was the simplest thing in the world for the county council to employ competent men to ascertain what was going to be the cost before they entered into the bargain. The difficulty was said to be a question of severance, but severance was a question which was dealt with every week in the year. If his hon. friend went to a division he would certainly support him.
  MR. HARCOURTthought that when the right hon. Gentleman said it was an easy thing to make an estimate of what an arbitrator would do in a case of this kind he was a little wide of the mark. The general experience was that there was usually a great disparity between the figures of the claim and the amount of the award, and it would be quite impossible to arrive beforehand at a definite figure which would enable the county council

  1381
  to say that they would either go on or abandon their point before they came to the award. The right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, argued this question without due reference to the Amendment which appeared a little lower down on the Paper in his name. He had spoken on the assumption that the county council had given the tenant notice to quit. In order to meet the two points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised in Committee he had put down an Amendment to omit Paragraph 5 of the schedule, and that removed altogether the power of the county council to give a sitting tenant notice to quit, so that would have to be done by the landlord. Then, when the county council became the owner of the land so far as the tenant's interest in remaining portion of the time (a few months) before the expiry of his notice was concerned they could buy that out.
  MR. HICKS BEACHadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman had gone a long way to meet hon. Members in moving the omission of Paragraph 5 of the schedule, but that did not remove the objection they had to this clause.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Bramptn

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Hall, Frederick

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crooks, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Davies, Ellis Williams (Eifion)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Ravies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Harworth, Arthur A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bell, Richard

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Benn, W.(T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Henry, Charles S.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bertram, Julius

  Edwards, Clement (Dembigh)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bcthell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Black, Arthur w.

  Elibank, Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Brace, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Branch, James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Brigg, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Kelley, George D.

  Clough, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grant, Corrie

  Lamont, Norman

  They objected to the county council being entitled to back out of a bargain of this kind in a way nobody else had a right to do. A railway company having entered into arrangements with a landowner to take his land was not entitled to back out of that arrangement, and if the railway company found they could not use the land they had either to keep it or get rid of it in the best way they could. He failed to see why county councils should be put in a better position than anybody else. If they were foolish enough to enter into a bad bargain they should be compelled to pay for it.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the reason why it was necessary to put the county councils in a different position from other owners was that under this Bill the county councils were under a disability in acquiring land. They could only acquire land at such a price that they could let it. That was an obvious reason why the county councils should be relieved.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 417.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Summerbell, T.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pollard, Dr.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lough, Thomas

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Radford, G. H.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rees, J. D.

  Vivian, Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wadsworth, J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richads, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincold)

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Waring, Walter

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Mansfield, H. Rendal (Lincoln)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Marnham, F. J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Seddon, J.

  Wilson, Johns (Durham, Mid

  Morse, L. L.

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Myer, Horatio

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Winfrey, R.

  Napier, T. B.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Newnes, F (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Snowden, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stanger, H. Y.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hool, Rt Hn. Sir Alxe. F.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, J.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, F. E. I Liverpool, Walton)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Wilson, S. Stanley (York. E. R.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Dublin, S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cave and Sir Edward Boyle.

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT said the next Amendment which he moved was in fulfilment of a promise which he had given upstairs in reply to what he considered a reasonable request as to the limit of time during which the county council should withdraw after determination of the amount. He had put in six weeks.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 7, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'at any time within six weeks after the determination of the amount.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT said the next Amendment which he moved had already been explained by him on a previous Amendment, and it was also in fulfilment of a promise he had given upstairs.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 9, to leave out the words 'and any notice to quit served on any tenant.'"—[Mr. Harcourt.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  MR. HARCOURT: The further Amendment is consequential.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'or to quit, as the case may be.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  SIR E. BOYLE,on the subsection providing for compensation for loss or expenses incurred in the event of withdrawal of notice to treat, moved to omit the words requiring the valuation to be determined by a single valuer and substituting instead arbitration. He submitted that owners and purchasers ought to be represented in the ordinary way at an arbitration; each side had a right to be protected by its own arbitrator. As the clause stood the owner had taken from him that right to protect his own property which he had always possessed.
  MR. HICKS BEACH,in seconding the Amendment, said it appeared to him that in a case of this kind both sides were entitled to be properly and fairly represented. Under a valuation, as he understood, neither side had an opportunity of hearing the arguments of the other, and therefore, could not reply to them. He did not see that any material expense would be incurred by the county council in employing an arbitrator instead of a valuer, and it certainly would have the advantage of removing any cause of bad feeling that might occur if each party concerned were not allowed to state their case as fully as they pleased in answering the arguments of the other side.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'valuation by a single valuer appointed by the Board,' and to insert the word 'arbitration.'"—(Sir E. Boyle.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT said that, while not agreeing with hon. Members opposite as to the merits of an arbitrator or a valuer generally, he did agree that this was a case in which each of the parties were entitled to an arbitrator. He fully maintained his opinion, however, as to the cheapness of the valuer. This was one of the cases, however, where he thought there should be arbitration, and he therefore accepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HICKS BEACHin moving the omission of Clause 27 (power to renew tenancy of land acquired compulsorily), said he did so because he did not see what reason there was why the county council, after having compulsorily acquired the land for thirty-five years, should be able, at the end of that period to renew the lease for another period of thirty-five years. It practically meant that the county council might have a perpetual lease of the land entirely against the will of the owner, and the landlord had no option at all to sell the land to the county council. He thought that in cases where the county council wished to renew their tenancy of the land which bad been compulsorily hired, they would do so only where the holdings had been a success. If the landlord still objected to leasing his land to the county council, he did not see why the county council should not listen to his wishes in some way and buy the land outright. Where the holdings were a success, surely it would be no hardship on the county council after the period of thirty-five years to raise a loan and buy the land outright. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would either reject this clause or accept the Amendment of his right hon. friend below him to the effect that if the landlord wished it, at the end of the lease, the county council should buy the land. The whole interest of the landlord in his property would be taken away by this compulsory hiring of land by the county council; he would have absolutely no control over it himself, and he would be deprived of the whole pleasure of ownership. In place of that he would get an annual rent, which the right hon. Gentleman said would be very

  1387
  valuable, because it would be secured on the rates. He did not believe that this would be any attraction to anybody who wished to purchase the estate. People only bought estates because they wished to possess them, to have complete control of them, and to do with them what they thought best. If a landlord had a portion of his estate compulsorily taken from him for thirty-five years, he would be deprived of the whole pleasure of it, and he would very likely put it up to auction. Its value would be materially decreased, because nobody would be anxious to buy it simply to be able to receive rents. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision, and at any rate, if he did not agree to omit the clause, accept the Amendment of his right hon. friend.
  VISCOUNT MORPETH VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.) said the right hon. Gentleman opposed the proposal which had just been made, but even that was fairer to the owner who was supposed to part with his land on lease to the county council, because under that scheme he would have had a fixed rent charge which would have been certain and permanent. Under this proposal not only was the owner deprived of his; property, but he only got a rent charge for an indefinite period. The owner would not be in a position to raise money on the rent charge. It was obvious that it would be an advantage to the county council to be able to acquire the land without having to raise money by way of loan, but it was not fair, in order to save the county council from the obligation of raising a loan to pay for the land to throw that obligation on the owner. It could not be so good a security if the land might be returned on the owner's hands. If the money had to be raised it should be raised by the county council who leased the land and not by the owner. One of the rights of property was I that the owner should be able to sell it I and use the proceeds for some other pur-pose. It used to be one of the tenets of the Liberal Party that land should be easily saleable. It had already been pointed out that under this proposal very great difficulties would be put in the way of the sale of land. It would be very hard to sell land from which all
  1388
  the advantages that a purchaser looked to when he was proposing to buy land had been removed. Most hon. Members had seen new estates being developed. He knew an instance of three estates where the land used to belong to a number of small and independent freeholders. What led to their formation? The creators of those estates were men who had made money and had bought estates for pleasure. It was beside the point to debate it, but that was the motive which influenced a great number of persons who went into the market to buy land. If by removing all the rights of property in land and the pleasures they carried with them, I they diminished the desire to purchase they would help to sterilise the price. He opposed this clause because it conferred real ownership without the proper price being paid for it. This system of compulsory hiring entailed a great number of qualifications with regard to the fixing of rent when the term was renewed. None of those qualifications would have been necessary if the county council had bought the land outright. Subclause (c) laid down, "that the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood," should not be taken as a reason for increasing the rent. They had debated the principle of betterment on another clause and it was shown clearly that whatever might be said for the abstract principle, in actual practice it was almost hopeless to put it into operation in this case because of the impossibility of saying to what the increase in value was due. He was sure any valuer would find the greatest difficulty in attempting to assess the increased value. This clause entailed all sorts of difficulties which would be avoided if the county council bought the land out and out, and for that reason he should vote for the striking out of the clause. If the State desired to reap the advantage accruing from any enhancement in the value of the land the proper way was to buy the land in the first instance. Under this measure if the land increased in value they could keep possession of it by re-hiring, but if the land diminished in value the county council had it in their power to throw it back on the hands of the owner. He did not think

  1389
  that was equal justice between the owner and the public. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 22, to leave out Clause 27."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word, 'valuation' in page 13, line 29, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that they had inserted in the Bill the principle of compulsory hiring and had declined to insert leases in perpetuity. The reasons for the special renewal provision in Clause 27 was very simple. If the county council still had a need or a demand for the land, even if there were no renewal powers, they would go to the Board for another compulsory order of acquisition, and certainly they would receive an order for compulsory hiring. This clause contained a cheapening of the process for the advantage of the tenant, the county council, and the landlord. If the county councils were compelled always to buy the land which they acquired, they would be practically excluded altogether from the temporary use of suburban land, which was perhaps being let at an agricultural rent while not wanted for actual building purposes.
  MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that on the broad principle it was a new departure in legislation to give an option to a local authority at the end of thirty-five years to continue a lease in perpetuity. Let the local authority have a trial trip for thirty-five years in order to see if small holdings could be made to pay. At the end of that time it was not unreasonable to ask that the lease should either be ended or that the property should be bought outright. This provision would hang a sword of Damocles over the landlord's head for all time. He would never know where he was, and he would have no power to resume possession of his property. This was not a double option; it was an option on one side. The landlord was to be at the mercy of the local authority. They were to determine whether they would continue the lease or not. He did not
  1390
  think that was fair. This was a national measure, and the House should endeavour to do justice so that no one should have any grievance. He knew that this clause contained the central principle of the Bill, and therefore he would be optimistic indeed if he imagined that the right hon. Gentleman would at the eleventh hour accede to the request of himself and his friends. The House, however, ought to look at the matter from the point of view of justice. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman was doing an injustice was that he wished to work this matter as economically as possible; he did not think that the local authorities would as a rule be in a position to purchase land outright, but that was a bad reason for inflicting injustice on the landlords.
  MR. FELLsaid he wished to refer to the unfortunate position in which the landlords would be placed if the land was taken for a period of thirty-five years. If the allotments were a great success, he did not think there would be very much doubt that the landlord would know some time before the expiry of the thirty-five years that the local authority would desire to lease the land again. But if they were only a partial success he would not know during the last year of the thirty-five years period whether the land was to be thrown back on his hands to be cultivated by himself or taken for the next thirty-five years. His son might be growing up, and it might be the intention that he should cultivate the land, but if the local authority said they were going to take a fresh lease for thirty-five years, the landlord's son would have wasted his time, because he would not be able to enter on the occupation to which he had been looking forward. That condition of extreme doubt and difficulty would prevail in all cases where allotments were only moderately successful. It would put I the owner of the land in a position which would be almost intolerable during the last year or two of the lease. A landlord might wish to take back some ground for the purpose of improving the amenities of his house, but under this clause he would not know whether he would be able to get it back. His wish to continue to reside at the place might depend largely on the question whether he could

  1391
  get the land he wanted round his house, but he would not know until near the expiration of the thirty-five years whether he would be able to get the land, and that was a position of hardship in which he ought not to be placed. On these grounds he supported the Amendment.
  MR. E. GAEDNERwas understood to say that the landlord at the end of thirty-

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Crae, George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Find lay, Alexander

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gill, A. H.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barlow, Sir John E.(Somerset)

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Barry, RedmondJ.(Tyrone, N.)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Marnham, F. J.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Grant, Corrie

  Massie, J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bell, Richard

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Montagu, E. S.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hall, Frederick

  Montgomery, H. G.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Morse, L. L.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Bertram, Julius

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Myer, Horatio

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Napier, T. B.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Newnes, F. (Notts. Bassetlaw)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r

  Brace, William

  Hazel, Dr A. E.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Branch, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Brigg, John

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Donnell, O. J. (Walworth)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Dr.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

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

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jenkins, J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rees, J. D.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Crooks, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Crossley, William J.

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Elibank, Master of

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sears, J. E.

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seddon, J.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

  Shackleton, David James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maclean, Donald.

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  five years should have the right to ask the local authority to purchase the land outright. The clause as it stood would be unjust to the landlord, and he supported the Amendment because he believed it would in some measure obviate that injustice.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 202; Noes, 43. (Division List No. 418.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Verney, F. W.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Snowden, P.

  Vivian, Henry

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Walker, H. Do R, (Leicester)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wislon, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wardle, George J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Waring, Walter

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Summerbell, T.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Weir, James Galloway

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Taylor, TheodoreC. (Radcliffe)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  NOES.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gretton, John

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hicks Beach and Viscount Morpeth.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he wished to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Kingston to leave out on line 29 of Clause 27, "valuation by a valuer appointed by the Board," and insert "arbitration." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider this Amendment, because he thought that both sides should have an opportunity of being fully heard.
  MR. FELLseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 29, to leave out the words 'valuation by a valuer appointed by the Board,' and to insert the word 'arbitration.'"—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he regretted he could not accept the Amendment. This was merely a question of fixing a fair rent on renewal of the lease. They had already agreed that a valuer was sufficient to fix the rent of the land already obtained, and
  1394
  a valuer was quite sufficient to fix a rent on renewal. There was no necessity for arbitration. The valuer would have to examine the various conditions that operated in fixing the rent. There was a great distinction between this Bill and that of 1894, because they had now a power of resumption of the land for industrial and other purposes, and therefore, the prospective value had not been considered by the person fixing the rent. By the procedure under the Bill they had a perfectly simple, everyday, commonplace decision of the valuator as to what was to be paid for this compulsory hiring. It was essential for the success of the scheme that legal processess, which were always unpleasant, necessary as they sometimes were, should be as economically conducted as possible.
  MR. HICKS BEACHasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved to add to the clause the following subsection; "(3) Within six months after the receipt of

  1395
  the notice mentioned in Subsection (1) of this section the landlord may, by notice in writing, require the council to purchase the land, and thereupon the council shall purchase the land as if the council had obtained an order authorising them to purchase the land, and had served upon the landlord a notice to treat in respect thereof." He said that it was very difficult to find any new argument in regard to the question which he was submitting to the House, although there might be many new arguments in regard to those clauses with regard to compensation which they had not and never would consider. On the particular subject before the House, he ex pressed his views last night as to the purchase of holdings, but the views which he sought to advance on this occasion had more weight than those which could be advanced in regard to purchase as a whole. Indeed, if they in that House did not consist of two political parties sitting on opposite sides the proposal had only to be stated to command general support. The proposal was this. Under the Bill powers were taken of compulsorily hiring land from the landlord for either fourteen or thirty-five years, and at the end of leases of that character powers were given to the county council to renew for a period of seventy years, for which period they were to all intents and purposes going to take over practical possession of the property of the landlord and to leave him no interest in his property except in regard to the rent which the county council might allow him. But that was not all; because at the end of seventy years the county council had nothing to do but to go to the Board of Agriculture and apply again for another period of seventy years. Such a system was certainly not much removed from perpetuity of tenure, although it was put on a different footing which would make it totally unsatisfactory to the landlord. He trusted he was not out of order in referring to what the right hon. Gentle man in charge of the Bill had said. He said it was a lease in perpetuity, but if it was a lease of that character he would on a previous occasion have given a different vote and gone into the opposite lobby to that which he did. If they
  1396
  took a man's property in perpetuity and converted him into a rent charger, they were bound in fairness and justice to pay him for his land, and except in a political assembly where party feeling ran high it would not be held that they should not do so. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the landlords could sell their property because they had at their back a guarantee for the payment of their rent from a solvent public body. He said, however, that property of that sort held under such terms offered practically no inducement to people to buy except as an investment. But they were only at the commencement of these proceedings, because they had to see if the experiment was a success. He hoped it would be, but he doubted it and he would require proof of it. He would require to see it a success in regard to the land which they were taking without payment. He wished to make one more appeal to the Government. When they came to the end of the first period of hiring, if the county council desired to renew their lease it practically meant that the experiment had been a success and that therefore they would want to keep the land for all time. In those circumstances he could not understand the refusal to compel the county council to pay the landlord in cash the value of his property.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 11, at the end, to insert the words '(3) Within six months after the receipt of the notice mentioned in Subsection (1) of this section the landlord may, by notice in writing, require the council to purchase the land, and thereupon the council shall purchase the land as if the council had obtained an order authorising them to purchase the land, and had served upon the landlord a notice to treat in respect thereof.'"—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. ROBSONadmitted, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that at this stage of the proceedings it was not easy to find any new arguments in regard to the Bill, and the same remark applied to this proposal which was rather more startling than that which preceded it.

  1397
  It was that the council should be compelled to purchase at the end of the first period. They were familiar with the argument that the owner should be compelled to sell to the public authority, but it was a novel proposal that the public authority should be compelled to purchase. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, if at the end of thirty-five years the council still desired to continue that would be evidence that the experiment had been a success and that they wished to perpetuate the tenure. His own idea was that at the end of the period of hiring the landlord would find the local authority so good a tenant that he would be unwilling to sell and would rather renew the old arrangement. If, however, he wished to sell and the county council wished to purchase they would purchase and it was open to them to do so. But he did not see why they should put a unilateral compulsion upon them.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he was not convinced by the Solicitor - General's argument, although the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think it was very convincing. He said that this proposal was novel, but so was the proposal in the clause itself. If the county council did not purchase or renew the lease, the latter came to an end, and the landlord resumed possession of his land and it seemed to him that the novel position was that taken up on the other side of the House. On the general question he also would make an appeal to the Government. He thought there was great force in what was put forward by those who supported this Amendment. They were told that the fact that this arrangement could go on as long as the local authority cared to continue it increased the possibilities of the landlord in regard to sale. They were also told that the local authority at the end of the first period might purchase if they liked, but surely that was a most extraordinary argument when the Government had taken extraordinary precautions under the Bill to say that the local authority should not purchase at all. He did not think that the Government could put forward the argument that they were increasing the selling power of the landlord or the selling price of the land. In fact they all knew that the land
  1398
  would be unsaleable because of this matter hanging over it. After the thirty-five years had expired a new condition of things ought to be allowed. The Government said they were bringing in a new procedure, but had they any right to bring in a new procedure which constituted an injustice? The procedure under the Bill was a novel one and was going far beyond anything which the House had done before. It took from the landlord the perpetual management of his own land and the local authority, having deprived the landlord of his right to do as he pleased with his property during the hiring period of thirty-five years, whether it had made a good bargain or not, should at the end of that period give the unfortunate landlord the capital value of his property so that he might do what he liked with his own. He felt very strongly that there was very great justice in the Amendment put forward and he hoped the Government would give it their consideration.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought the Solicitor-General had advanced a most extraordinary argument against the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to look on renewal and non-renewal as against purchase as if both the contracting parties were free. But that was not the case; the circumstances were very different indeed. By this Bill they were binding the landlord to accept the terms of the county council. He had no option of refusing to renew, and yet they were told that if the county council wanted the land in perpetuity, they would buy it. How was that conclusion arrived at? If the county council wanted this land in perpetuity, they got it under the Bill by renewing the lease every thirty-five years with the probability of a reduction of rent at every break of the lease. If the tenants of the county council had depreciated the value of the land, it was the most likely thing in the world that the valuer who valued the land would reduce the rent to be paid by the county council. When they could gain the land in perpetuity by renewals every thirty-five years, they would not purchase the land unless there was something in the Bill compelling them to do so. Another of

  1399
  the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments was that a landlord would not want to sell the land, because such a rent-charge would probably give him better interest than he otherwise would get. That landlords would not be willing to sell on that ground he could hardly believe, because not only could they get better security and interest from other investments, but at any time that the county council wanted to get rid of the land the landowners would have to find an immense capital sum to pay for the improvements, drainage, and so on. He could not imagine any landlord, if this Amendment was passed, who would not compel the county council to buy the land. As it was, the Government had thrown the risk of failure on the landlord and not on the county council, but if the county council had been justified in acquiring the land, what earthly objection could there be to their purchasing it? If the thing was to be done fairly and owners of land were to be treated as owners of other property would be treated under similar circumstances, he would have thought that any assembly of men, not divided as that House was by Party considerations, would have recognised the reasonableness and justice of the Amendment. By this Bill the Government gave the county councils all the advantages of purchase without then-having to pay for them, and if that was not predatory he did not know the meaning of the word. He had said that the landlord would be willing to sell his land under these circumstances, but would he find a buyer for this annual rent-charge which was said to be such a grand security? He could not imagine the landlord under any circumstances being able to transfer the remnants of his rights of property to anybody in the world. Nobody would be such a fool as to purchase under the circumstances. He supported the Amendment with all the force at his command.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the noble Lord, no doubt quite unintentionally, had misrepresented the Bill. If he would look at the end of Clause 27 he would find that it disposed of his statement that under the valuation the landlord was likely to have a lower rent owing to the depreciation
  1400
  of the land by the county council and their tenant. There he would find words specially inserted to obviate-any such result. So long as the land was compulsorily hired the landlord would not suffer in his rent in consequence of depreciation.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked whether, if the tenancy was changed, the new tenant would pay the same rent, although, the land had deteriorated.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the council would have to pay the rent to the landlord without any deduction owing to deterioration.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLASTEYsaid that although they were familiar with the arguments in favour of compelling a landlord to sell his property, the Solicitor-General pretended to be horrified by the suggestion that the public authority should be compelled to buy. If they compelled a landlord to sell his rights of property, the persons to whom those rights were transferred should be compelled to carry out their bargain. The Solicitor-General was defending the rankest and grossest injustice ever suggested, and he hoped to get from a packed jury a verdict in his favour. When in another place they found a leader whom they had been craving to follow speaking in the interests, of the country at large, they lifted up their hands in horror at the way in which he had degenerated. Because the noble Lord had spoken in the interests of justice he had ceased to be a Leader of the Liberal Party. He wondered whether there was any case within the knowledge of any person who had transacted business, either public or private, in which there were two parties to the negotiation, where the option was denied to one while it could be exercised most detrimentally against him by the other? He could not conceive in a case in which hon. Members were trustees for property or settlements or where they had been called in to adjudicate on matters affecting other people, as some of them had, any conditions under which they would say to one side, "No, you are bound to lose, I cannot do anything for you," and to the other, "I cannot deny you any opportunity of

  1401
  gaining." There was no element of fair play in it. They took the land by compulsion, and when they had proved its value, why should they not at the end of the term give the landlord the price of the article which they had taken from him? It was asserted that the rent-charge was a saleable and valuable commodity; some of them thought that it was unsaleable and valueless, and was very likely to go down in the same way that Consols went down under a Liberal administration, and for the same reason—want of confidence in the support that the country would give to their measure. Although the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor General by his side were

  AYES.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Moore, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nield, Herbert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, J.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hills, J. W.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Viscount Valentia and Lord

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Edmund Talbot.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Acland, Fiancis Dyke

  Branch, James

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brigg, John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Alden, Percy

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Erskine, David C.

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Bcauehamp, E.

  Clough, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clynes, J. R.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Bell, Richard

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Findlay, Alexinder

  Bertram, Julius

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Freeman-Thomas Freeman

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crooks, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crossley, William J.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Brace, William

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Gill, A. H.

  staunch opponents of confiscatory and predatory legislation, they had no assurance that there might not in the future; be those in power who would be proud to confiscate and proud to be predatory. There was one simple way to deal with this question. The landlords were forced against their will to resign their property, and they asked the Government to pay for what they took, and the Government in so far as they declined to buy were denying them justice.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 235. (Division List No. 419.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Callum, John M.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampt'n

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Seddon, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-s)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire N. E.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Massie, J.

  Snowden, P.

  Hazel, Br. A. E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morse, L. L.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Myer, Horatio

  Summerbell, T.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Napier, T. B.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'st'r

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.

  Hudson, Walter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Ure, Alexander

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Verney, F. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Grady, J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester).

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southmpt'n

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Wardle, George J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Phillipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n

  Waring, Walter

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kelley, George D.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Radford, G. H.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax).

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees, J. D.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Winfrey, R.

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wood, T. MKinnon

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. Whitcley and Mr. J. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Pease.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Maclean, Donald

  Runciman, Walter

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 17, to leave out from the word 'years' to the end of the subsection."—(Mr. Cave).
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT said he did not really see what the hon. and learned
  1404
  Member meant by this Amendment. It would only give to the life tenant-power to do by agreement what the local authority enforced upon him by compulsion. It was only a reasonable provision and he thought it ought to be retained.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 15, line 18, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'be authorised by an order under this Act to.'"
  "In page 15, line 19, after the word 'which,' to insert the words 'at the date of the order.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY.on behalf of the hon. Member for the Whitby Division, moved to insert in line 20, on page 15, the words "home farm." It had been said that this point was covered by the Bill, but he wished to point out that there was a precedent for it in the Scottish Land Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept the Amendment.
  MR. GEORGE FABERseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, line 20, after the word ground to insert the words 'home farm.'"—(Viscount Helmsley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid they had a very interesting discussion on this point in Committee upstairs, and hon. Gentlemen representing the Opposition accepted his suggestion that on the whole the words "home farm" were not easy to define. The words of the clause he was assured entirely covered "home farm" and other matters.
  MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that in the Scottish Bill it was thought necessary in a like case to insert the words "home farm," but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this measure seemed to take a different view.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 15, line 21, after the word 'which' to insert the words 'at that date.'"—(Mr. Harcourt).
  "In page 15, line 24, at the end, to add the words 'and, subject to the foregoing provisions,
  1406
  preference shall be given to land which is not farmed by or in the occupation of any tenant.'"—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT moved an Amendment on Clause 30 to carry out an arrangement which was come to with hon. Members upstairs. He accepted some words of an Amendment in Committee, but immediately afterwards he realised that they might carry a meaning which was not intended and he explained at once that he must replace them by other words. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, line 31, to leave out from the word 'and,' to end of subsection, and to insert the words 'for that purpose, where part only of a holding is taken, shall take into consideration the size and character of the existing agricultural buildings not proposed to be taken, which were used in connection with the holding, and the quantity and nature of the land available for occupation therewith.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he could not agree to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of an arrangement. There was no arrangement so far as those on that side of the House were concerned. The closing words of Subsection (2) of Clause 30 were as follows—
  "And in particular shall avoid taking a part of a holding so that sufficient land would not be left for the economic and profitable use of the existing agricultural buildings and equipment of the holding."
  Nothing could be fairer than that proposal, but there was a great difference between it and the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman now asked to substitute. No doubt what the right hon. Gentleman proposed was better than nothing at all, but it was not nearly so good as the proposal in the clause. That being so, he must oppose the change.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid it was to avoid the possibility of misconstruction that the Amendment was proposed.
  MR. GEORGE FABERsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had

  1407
  proposed an alteration in the clause as it left the Committee upstairs. In doing so he had shown weakness by aceeding to the demand of extremists out his own side. He and his friends did not think the right hon. Gentleman had done justice to himself or to them in proposing this Amendment on the Report Stage.
  MR. HICKS BEACHexpressed regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not

  AYES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Moore, William

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gordon, J.

  Nield, Herbert

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gretton, John

  Parker, Sir Gibert (Gravesend)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Care, George

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Viscount Valentia and Mr.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Forster.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Alden, Percy

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Elibank, Master of

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Erskine, David C.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Essex, R. W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Beauehamp, E.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clough, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bell, Richard

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ferens, T. R.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

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

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W

  Findlay, Alexander

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bertram, Julius

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cox, Harold

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crooks, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Brace, William

  Crossley, William J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Glover, Thomas

  Branch, James

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gooch, George Pea body

  Brigg, John

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Grant, Corrie

  seen his way to stand by the words passed in Committee.
  And, it being half-past ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 9th August, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 67: Noes, 263. (Division List No. 420.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  G urdon, Et. Hn Sir W. Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Sears, J. E.

  Harcourt, Et. Hon. Lewis

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Seddon, J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Shackleton, David James

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Woro'r)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Massie, J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hedges, A, Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Snowden, P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morse, L. L.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Myer, Horatio

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Napier, T. B.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Summerbell, T.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholls, George

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (D'cast'r

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Ure, Alexander

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Grady, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Vivian, Henry

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Kelley, George D.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Radford, G. H.

  Waring, Walter

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lambert, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wedgwood, Josiah G

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Weir, James Galloway

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Rees, J. D.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Longh, Thomas

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'rd

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.

  Robinson, S.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Winfrey, R.

  Maclean, Donald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Yoxall, James Henry

  MaeVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rose, Charles Day

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr J. A. Pease.

  M'Crae, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Words there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKERthen proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page la, line 35, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'be authorised by an order under this Act to.'"
  1410
  "In page 15, line 41, after the word 'acquired,' to insert the words 'and to acquire for that purpose stints and other alienable common rights of grazing.'"
  "In page 16, line 1, after the word 'created,' to insert the words 'or acquired.'"
  "In page 16, line 1, to leave out the words 'over land acquired.'"
  "In page 16, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words 'and any similar rights otherwise acquired by the council.'"

  1411
  "In page 17, line 30, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the word" 'and his successors in title.'"
  "In page 19, line 6, after the word 'formation,' to insert the words 'or extension.'"
  "In page 39, line 7, to leave out the words 'assist co-operative societies and credit banks or societies.' and to insert the words 'may, subject to the provisions of this section, assist societies on a co-operative basis.'"
  "In page 19, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words 'furtherance of the provision and successful cultivation,' and to insert the word 'provision or the profitable working.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Higham, John Sharp

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crooks, William

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crossley, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Alden, Percy

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  De war, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jenkins, J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanlcy)

  Johnson, W. (Duneaton)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bell, Richard

  Essex, R. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bertram, Julius

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kelley, George D.

  Bethell, SirJ. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Ferens, T. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford).

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lambert, George

  Brace, William

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lamont, Norman

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Branch, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Brigg, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Glover, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lough, Thomas

  Byles, William Pollard

  Grant, Corrie

  Lupton, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hall, Frederick

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Maclean, Donald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Clough, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Crae, George

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Collins Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cooper, G. J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln.)

  Cox, Harold

  Henry, Charles S.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 19, line 10, after the word 'allotments,' to insert the words 'whether in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking or insurance, or otherwise, and may employ any society as their agents for the purpose.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Aves, 268; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 421.)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Massie, J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mioklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ure, Alexander

  Moltetio, Percy Alport

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Verney, F. W.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Vivian, Henry

  Morgan, O. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robinson, S.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Morse, L. L.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walson, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Napier, T. B.

  Runciman, Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Basset law)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Watd, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Nicholls, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wardle, George J.

  Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Waring, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sears, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seddon, J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah O.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seely, Colonel

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Donnell, O. J. (Walworth)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Grady, J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Snowden, P.

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

  Pollard, Dr.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid).

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, P.)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).

  Radford, G. H.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Winfrey, R.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Summerbell, T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Rees, J. D.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Rendait, Athelstan

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  NOES.

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craik, Sir Henr

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ashley, W. W.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Moore, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Gordon, J.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rawlinson, John Frederiek Peel

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 19, line 13, to leave out the words 'purposes aforesaid guarantee,' and to insert the words 'purpose of assisting a society give guarantees.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 19, line 13, after the word 'make to insert the words 'grants or.'"
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Erskine, David C.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Essex, R. W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Alden, Percy

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

  Barnard, E. B.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bell, Richard

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bertram, Julius

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Gurdon, Rt Hn SirW. Brampton

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brace, William

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Branch, James

  Harmsworth, R. L (Caithn'ss-sh

  Massie, J.

  Brigg, John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrell, Philip

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Morse, L. L.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Chance, Frederick William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hills, J. W.

  Nicholls, George

  Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cleland, J. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Clough, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clynes, J. R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  'Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jenkins, J.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cox, Harold

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Crooks, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Kelley, George D.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rees, J. D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lambert, George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lamont, Norman

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  The House divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 422.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Snowden, P.

  Wardle, George J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Waring, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Robinson, S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Weir, James Galloway

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax).

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Summerbell, T.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rowlands, J.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Runciman, Walter

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Taylor, Theodore C, (Radcliffe)

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

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)-

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).

  Sears, J. E.

  Ure, Alexander

  Winfrey, R.

  Seddon, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Seely, Colonel

  Vivian, Henry

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Wadsworth, J.

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Walker, H De R. (Leicester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walsh, Stephen

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  NOES.

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ashley, W. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moore, William

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nield, Herbert

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Gordon, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Grctton, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peek

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Viscount Valentia and Mr.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Forster.

  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 19, line 13, to leave out the words 'any such,' and to insert the word 'the.'"
  "In page 19, line 14, to leave out the words 'or bank.'"
  "In page 19, line 16, after the word 'such,' to insert the words 'grants or.'"
  "In page 19, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words 'co-operative society or credit bank or and to insert the word' such.'"
  "In page 19, line 36, after the word 'acquired,' to insert the words 'and shall so transfer the land on payment of all sums due from the council in connection therewith, and on proof to the satisfaction of the Board that the council are willing to exercise and
  1418
  perform their powers and duties in relation thereto.'"
  "In page 20, line 34, after the word 'which,' to insert the words 'exceeds one acre and.'"
  "In page 20, line 37, to leave out from the word 'pounds,' to end of line 40."
  "In page 22, line 32, to leave out Subsection (5)."
  "In page 23, line 39, after the word 'manner to insert the words and (unless otherwise agreed) to keep the buildings in repair.'"
  "In page 24, line C, after the word 'any,' to insert the word 'minerals.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 24, line 6, after the word 'clay,' to insert the words 'except so far as may be necessary or convenient for the purpose of greeting buildings on the land or otherwise dapting the land for small holdings or allotments.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Alden, Percy

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lambert, George

  Ashton, ThomasGair

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hy.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Essex, R. W.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lehmann, R. C

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barnard, E. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lupton, Arnold

  Beauchamp, E.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bell, Richard

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Macdonald, J. R, (Leicester)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bertram, Julius

  Gill, A. H.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Brace, William

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maddison, Frederick

  Branch, James

  Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Brigg, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hall, Frederick

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithn'ss-sh

  Marnham, F. J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Massie, J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, C. H.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Morse, L. L.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Napier, T. B.

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholls, George

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Donnell, G J. (Walworth)

  Cox, Harold

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Grady, J.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Divies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pollard, Dr.

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Question put, "That the Amenement be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 268; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 423).

  Radford, G. H.

  Shackleton, David James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Raphael, Herbert, H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waring, Walter

  Rees, J. D.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Snowden, P.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverlrmpt'n)

  Stanger., H. Y.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roberts, O. H. (Norwich)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, SirG. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Robinson, S.

  Summerbell, T.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rowlands, J.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Winfrey, R.

  Runciman, Walter

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ure, Alexander

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Verney, F. W.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Vivian, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Wadsworth, J.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Sears, J. E.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Pease.

  Seddon, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Seely, Colonel

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

  NOES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Moore, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nield, Herbert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gordon, J.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. Rt Winchester

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsloy, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Younger, George

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone. E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 24, line 19, after the word 'rent,' to insert the words 'to be paid for the land compulsorily hired.'"
  "In page 24, line 26, at end, to insert the words '(4) Any compensation awarded to a tenant in respect of any depreciation of the value to him of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land compulsorily hired shall, as far as possible, be provided for by taking such compensation into account in fixing the rent to be paid for the residue of the holding during the remainder of the term for which it is held by the tenant.'"
  1422
  "In page 25, line 13, at the end, to insert the words 'Subsection 2 of Section 11, from the words Provided that to the end of the subsection.'"
  "In page 25, line 31, after the word 'five,' to insert in Section 11 the words 'and then to the person or person whose lands immediately adjoin the holding.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
The following new clause stood on the Notice Paper in the name of Lord R. Cecil—
"For the purpose of regulating the position and duties of spiritual persons as affected by this Act it shall be lawful for the Convocations of the Clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York to make and promulge canons under the licence and with the consent of His Majesty the King, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of the twenty-fifth year of King Henry the Eighth, chapter nineteen, intituled an Act for the submission of the clergy to the King's Majesty, for the regulation of the following matters, that is to say: (a) The powers and procedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts, in case any person shall be presented by the minister or churchwardens of any parish for having contracted a marriage made lawful by this Act; (b) The obligation upon clergymen to administer or to refuse to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to persons who shall have contracted marriages made lawful by this Act; (c) The obligation upon clergymen to read or to refuse to read the Order for the Burial of the Dead, prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, in the case of persons who shall have contracted marriages made lawful by this Act; and if canons shall be made and promulged accordingly regulating these matters aforesaid by the Convocations of the Clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York, such canons shall have the same force and effect within the provinces over which those Convocations have authority respectively as though they had been enacted in this Act."
MR. SPEAKER: The proposed new clause is out of order, because it is beyond the scope of the Bill.
LORD R. CECILsubmitted that the Bill dealt with the civil position of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and therefore left untouched the ecclesiastical position. Unless some clause was put in to deal with that, great confusion would necessarily arise, and it would be impossible to know what were the duties of those persons who were subject to ecclesiastical law.
MR. SPEAKER: It does not require a legal enactment to regulate the position and duties of the spiritual persons affected by the Bill. That can be done without any civil Act by licence from the Crown.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 1, to leave out the preamble.'"—(Sir Brampton Gurdon.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Whereas' stand part of the Bill."
LORD R. CECILsaid the preamble as it appeared in the Bill was as follows—
"Whereas it is expedient to amend the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister."
He did not know why the preamble should be omitted. Did the hon. Member in charge of the Bill abandon the position that it was expedient to amend the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister? He submitted that the preamble should not only be retained but considerably expanded. The clauses of the Bill went far beyond the principle laid down in the preamble. He contended that the preamble ought to be retained, amended, and extended, because the principle of the Bill ought to be more fully defined in the preamble than it was. Hon. Members might say that there were Amendments on the Paper which it was desirable to avoid by moving the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norfolk. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] It seemed that that was accepted by hon. Members, and he submitted that it was legitimate, under these circumstances, to explain why it was desirable to retain the preamble, amended and extended so as to declare the true principle of the Bill, which was that consanguinity was the only objection to marriage. That ought to be stated if the House desired to deal honestly and straightforwardly with this question, and if they had the courage of their opinions, which was a rare quality in these days. Hon. Gentlemen had not only not the courage of their opinions, but they appeared not even to know what their opinions were. They accepted the theory on which the preamble rested, viz., that it was expedient to legalise marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but they failed to see that that principle could only be carried out by legalising far more than this particular code of marriage. The House of Commons ought to face the fact that they could not stop at that point. There was no conceivable reason, either logical or theological, why they should limit their progress to marriage with a

1425
deceased wife's sister. He remembered very well that when this argument was being pressed in the House on a former occasion, an hon. Member saying: "Very well; that is quite true; but one step at a time." He had no doubt that that vas at the bottom of the mind of those who thought logically and honestly on this question. They did not stop merely at this miserable and utterly unsubstantial proposition of a desire to legalise marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but desired to go on and legalise marriage with a deceased brother's widow and to sweep away all restraints on marriage, except those founded on consanguinity. He desired to see that stated in the preamble so that the country might know what was really intended by the Bill. They heard a great deal of the House representing the will of the people, but he was convinced that if the House of Commons had the courage to state that their desire was to sweep away all bars to marriage they would have a very limited chance of representing the will of the people. In his opinion there was no public demand for this Bill. [Loud cries of "Divide."] He did not recommend hon. Members to begin at that comparatively early period of the night so to treat a proposed change in the law of the most vital importance. If they had to discuss this question between eleven and twelve o'clock at night, that was due to the Prime Minister. He himself would have been quite content to discuss the question on a Saturday morning, or at any other suitable time when the House could approach it in other than a post-prandial mood. [Loud cries of "Oh, oh!"] He desired distinctly to oppose the Amendment, not because he liked the preamble in itself, but because he thought it would form a proper basis of a true statement of the principle on which the Bill was founded. He asked the House not to run away from the principle in which they professed to believe.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that this was a very good illustration of the evils which resulted from legislation at that late hour of the night. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew as well as any Member the procedure of the
1426
House. He was thoroughly acquainted with all the rules which governed the introduction of a Bill, and yet suddenly, after this Bill had been before the House for a considerable number of weeks and subjected to discussion in Committee at considerable length, he discovered that the preamble was useless. If a young Member of the House, fired by a desire to establish his name on the Parliamentary records, had brought in a Bill which he thought would appeal to the imagination of the people and give him a place in history, had been guilty of committing an error in the preamble, and suddenly finding that the preamble was ancient history, had come down to the House and proposed to omit the preamble, he would have commiserated the hon. Gentleman and at the same time have conceded that it was his earnest desire to conform to the usages of the House. But when that course was taken by a gentleman of the experience of the right hon. Member, he showed that his desire was to pass the Bill and at the same time to go home to bed. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were desirous of discussing this question in a proper manner. They considered that this was a measure—whether they were right or wrong did not matter—which should be properly debated. It was necessary for hon. Members to convince them that they were wrong. What the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do, however, was to burke discussion in order that he might force through his Bill by the power of the majority which unfortunately he and his Party possessed. He would really like to know why the right hon. Gentleman wished to withdraw the preamble. It stated very clearly what was the object of the Bill, and prevented any doubt arising in the minds of hon. Members as to whether anything was intended in the alteration of the law beyond that which referred to the marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The hon. Gentleman might wish to go further and abolish the ties of marriage unless such as were prescribed by consanguinity. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] He was stating nothing which was absurd. Let them take the hon. Member for the Colne Valley division of Yorkshire,

1427
What was his idea? It was that the marriage tie should be very much loosened.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that the idea of the hon. Member was incorrect. It was so reported in the paper, but the hon. Member for Colne Valley had contradicted it.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid it might have been contradicted in the paper, but up to the present moment it had not been contradicted in the House. Of course, he accepted the statement of the hon. Member that it had been contradicted, but he denied that he was in any way wrong in making the statement, until he knew that it had been contradicted. Dealing with the Bill from the point of view of the noble Lord, who objected to the abolition of any prohibition of the marriage tie except consanguinity, he would point out that the preamble laid it down that no other alliances were to be made, except with a deceased wife's sister, and therefore he said that to withdraw it was one of the greatest mistakes that could be made from the point of view of the promoters of the Bill themselves. They encouraged the idea that there was some reason for withdrawing the preamble, and he thought the reason which the noble Lord advanced was the correct one, and that there were certain Amendments on the Paper which had led to this course. But people outside the House would not understand that the preamble was withdrawn because there were Amendments on the Paper. He thought that the hon. Gentleman ought to make a clear statement as to his reasons for omitting the preamble. Under the circumstances he hoped his noble friend would go to a division, in order to emphasise his disagreement with the idea that because there were some Amendments to the preamble of the Bill, the proper course was to withdraw it in order to save a little time.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that, speaking as one who was in favour of this Bill and who had travelled some little distance to vote for it, he confessed he did not understand why the preamble should be withdrawn. It recited that it was expedient to amend
1428
the law in regard to marriage with a deceased wife's sister. In his opinion it was a weak and undesirable concession to the very small opposition to the Bill. It was not the temper in which the House of Commons ought to approach that small opposition. The spirit in which the House ought to act was that if they were prepared to sit up all night to prevent the Bill becoming law, they who supported it were prepared to sit up all night and meet them in the Division Lobby and in argument in order that it should become law. If the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone and other hon. Members came before the House with Amendments to the preamble let those who supported the Bill meet them in argument or in the Division Lobby. That was the whole thing for which they were contending.
MR. EVELYN CECILwished to protest against the flippant manner in which this proposal for a fundamental alteration of the marriage law was being treated. He supposed the proposal to omit the preamble was due to the fact that the hon. Member was afraid of the House not affirming the principle that it was expedient to alter the marriage law. He had on this point looked up the petitions which had been presented in regard to the Bill. The number of petitions according to the report of the Committee on Public Petitions between the 29th April and the 22nd June was against the Bill 112 with 6, 381 signatures. The number of petitions in favour of the Bill, on the other hand, was one and the total number of signatures in favour of the Bill was also one. This was a Bill which the Government thought was so urgently demanded by the country that they asked the House to consider it at that time of night. It was very absurd in his opinion.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not in order; he was not discussing the question of the retention of the preamble.
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman ought to stick to his guns in order to maintain that which was right in the public interest.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought the hon. Gentleman could hardly be aware of the strength of the feeling there was against the Bill in the country.
MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was not discussing the preamble, but the general principle of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he was coming to the preamble, but he wished to point out that they would not be able to move the particular Amendments which stood in their names if the Motion were carried.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that that argument had been used already and the noble

AYES.

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfteld)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craik, Sir Henry

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walter)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hardy, Laurence Kent, Ashford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Turnour, Viscount

Baring, Capt. Hn. G Winchester

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Valentia, Viscount

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Bridge-man, W. Clive

Lane-Fox G. R.

Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Sir

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

William Bull.

Cave, George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Byles, William Pollard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Essex, R. W.

Alden, Percy

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Esslemont, George Birnie

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Evans, Samuel T.

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.

Everett, R. Lacey

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Chance, Frederick William

Faber, George Denison (York)

Barring, Godfrey (Isle of Wright)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fell, Arthur

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fenwick, Charles

Barnard, E. B.

Clough, William

Ferens, T. R.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry N.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Beauchamp, E.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Fetheistonhaugh, Godfrey

Beck, A. Cecil

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bellairs, Carlyon

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Findlay, Alexander

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cooper, G. J.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bertram, Julius

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

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cory, Clifford John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Black, Arthur W.

Cox, Harold

Fullerton, Hugh

Bowerman, C. W.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Brace, William

Crooks, William

Gill, A. H.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Crossley, William J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Branch, James

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Glover, Thomas

Brigg, John

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Gooch, George Pea body

Bright, J. A.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Grant, Corrie

Brodie, H. C.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Viscount should not repeat arguments which had already been used.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he had not heard the argument used, as he came in expecting to find the House discussing the new clauses and not the preamble. As to the latter they wished it to be confined to this one instance of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and not to be made a "jumping-off" ground for the alteration of the mirriage law generally. The symmetry of the Bill would be very considerably changed if the preamble was omitted.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 236. (Division List No. 424)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Callum, John M.

Runciman, Walter

Hall, Frederick

M'Crae, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Micking, Major G.

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithn'ss-sh

Maddison, Frederick

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mallet, Charles E.

Seddon, J.

Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Seely, Colonel

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Shackleton, David James

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Helme, Norval Watson

Marnham, F. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Massie, J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Montgomery, H. G.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Higham, John Sharp

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Snowden, P.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Stanger, H. Y.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.).

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Nicholls, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Horniman, Emlsie John

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncaster)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Summerbell, T.

Hyde, Clarendon

Nuttall, Harry

Sutherland, J. E.

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Isaacs, Rnfus Daniel

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Donnell, G J. (Walworth)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Thornton, Percy M.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Urc, Alexander

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Paulton, James Mellor

Verney, F. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Vivian, Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Wadsworth, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Walsh, Stephen

Kckewich, Sir George

Pollard, Dr.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Kelley, George D.

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

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lai Haw, Robert

Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Radford, G. H.

Wardle, George J.

Lambert, George

Randles, Sir John Sucrrah

Waring, Walter

Lamont, Norman

Raphael, Herbert H.

Waterlow, 1). S.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (S. Pancras, E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wedgwood, josiah C

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Weir, James Galloway

Lehmann, R. C.

Kendall, Athelstan

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n)

Wiles, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilkie, Alexander

Lough, Thomas

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lupton, Arnold

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Winfrey, R.

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Robinson, S.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Rogers, F. E. Newman

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rose, Charles Day

.

Macpherson, J. T.

Rowlands, J.

Remaining words of the Preamble left out of the Bill.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY MR. LAURENCE HARDY moved to leave out Clause 1. He said that undoubtedly in connection with a Bill of this sort his Motion might seem to be rather a large measure, but if he desired no other argument he might simply fall back upon the action of the promoters of the Bill in the Motion which had just been passed, because they had deliberately eliminated from the Bill the statement
1432
that it was expedient to amend the law in relation to marriage with a deceased wife's sister. As Clause 1 was for the purpose of doing that, he might have taken the statement of the hon. Baronet. He did not, however, desire to press that further, but he did desire to move this Amendment for three reasons First of all, he did it as a protest against the action of he Government in suddenly adopting this Bill practically without notice, and bringing it on at a late hour of night, long after it was

1433
thought that any controversial measure of this sort was likely to be adopted by the Government. Even if it had been a Government measure itself, that they should have, so long after the massacre of the innocents, an aged Bill of this controversial character brought before the House was a precedent against which he protested. He admitted the length of time that the particular principle enshrined in Clause 1 had been before both Houses of Parliament, but that fact showed there was really no feeling in the country about it. It was a matter of such extreme difficulty and such serious moment that although people might have lightly played with it they had never seriously desired to introduce this new principle into our marriage law. Therefore, in the first instance he moved to omit this clause as a protest against the Government's action in the matter. In the second place, he desired to give the promoters of the Bill an opportunity of giving some explanation, before the House really entered upon the discussion of the details of the Bill, as to what they intended to do in connection with the many points which were raised during the last discussion they had on the recommittal of the Bill. At the very last moment of their discussion in June they had an entirely new proposition put before them by the learned Solicitor-General in which he said, although the Bill seemed to be limited to a civil contract, that carried with it the power to over-ride any previous Act. As that was introduced somewhat to their surprise at a very late period in the discussion they ought to have some further explanation. Other questions which had been raised by his hon. friends undoubtedly required explanation from the promoters before they entered upon the full discussion of the details of the Bill. The third reason why he desired to leave out Clause 1 was the reason at the bottom of the opposition which they brought to this Bill. They objected to this tampering with the marriage law which would I break up that which had prevailed for so I many centuries, in order, first of all, to get out of a strait people who had wilfully broken the law, and to enable other people in future to follow an example
1434
which certainly had not had any encouragement in past centuries. They knew, as was stated in the discussion on the preamble, that the principle enshrined in Clause I could not eventually be confined to that one particular degree of affinity included in the clause. It must lead to a widening and further weakening of the marriage law, and therefore those who believed there was a very great advantage, social, political, and ecclesiastical, in maintaining the marriage law in the condition in which it had been, protested strongly against this infringement.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLseconded, and said that as this was the last occasion on which they would have the opportunity of discussing the Bill he hoped he might be allowed to make a few observations as he had done on more than one occasion. He thought, first, that the situation as regarded the Bill was very greatly changed by the proceedings that night. The preamble which had been omitted was a limiting preamble. It indicated in a somewhat emphatic manner that the intention of Parliament was confined to marriage with a deceased wife's sister. That really pointed to the future, and he confessed that his memory went back to an incident on a similar occasion in the earlier stages of his political life, when Lord John Russell, sitting on the opposite bench, rose and said that he had taken no part in the discussion because he always felt that if they altered the law with regard to the deceased wife's sister they could not stop there. Lord John Russell, as some who remembered him might bear in mind, was singularly cold and impassive as regarded his appearance during debate, but on that occasion he was profoundly moved, and he said he could not help feeling that the Bill must necessarily lead to a wide and far-reaching revolution of the laws respecting the marriage state in this country. He did not wish to enlarge upon the arguments which had been so fully developed upon former occasions, but he might be allowed briefly to mention four. The first was the sentiment of the Church of England, the national Church, on this subject. He did not believe that they

1435
could pass over or ignore that deeply seated sentiment. They had also amongst them a large section of Roman Catholics. Holding that these marriages were contrary to the Divine law, that Church maintained the prerogative of relaxing the law in particular cases, and if hon. Members were to examine the evidence given, on more than one inquiry, by Roman Catholic prelates, they would find that that relaxation, according to them, was not given by accident or carelessness, but only after careful inquiry into the case, in order to use the words often employed in Roman Catholic controversies, "to avoid greater evils." He would say nothing as regarded the Church of Scotland, because hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the debates were present, and would speak for it. But he wished to refer first to the very strong feeling which existed amongst important classes of this country as regarded the effect of this proposed change upon family life. In his opinion that sentiment to which he had referred could not be despised or ignored in that House. There was no doubt that the passing of this law would inflict great pain upon classes entitled to their respect and esteem, and he could not in silence allow a want of regard to be shown on that occasion. There was another reason, which might be divided into two, and that was the effect of the Bill upon the devolution of property, and also upon the devolution of titles of honour. In the debate in the Standing Committee upstairs some years ago—he might call it an historic debate, because it had a great effect upon the modification of their system as regarded Standing Committees—questions of this kind were discussed; day after day difficulties were raised, and arguments were used to explain those difficulties. Those arguments were never met nor the difficulties removed. Then, also, they must have regard to the great anxiety which would be felt in coming years, with a new generation, when these difficulties fully came into life. There were difficulties dealing with the minutiae of real pro perty and with the devolution of titles of honour, and although in this Bill—contrary to the experience of former Bills—that branch
1436
of the subject was entirely ignored, and it might be ignored in their Statutes, it could not be ignored in Law Courts, unless those Courts were assisted and helped by legislation in that House. Those were the difficulties which had occurred to him in connection with the Bill. They had been mentioned before, but although he had been present, he believed, during the whole of the discussion, he had never heard a satisfactory answer given to them. To his mind the difficulties were enormously increased by the omission of the limiting words of the preamble, because the omission of that limitation certainly increased the risk that the change could not stop there, but must go forward and affect in a most serious degree the relations of life in this country.
Amendment proposed to the Bill, "In page 1, line 7, to leave out Clause 1 of the Bill."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'no' stand part of the Bill."
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he fully appreciated what the mover had said, but of course Clause 1 was the whole of the Bill, the other two clauses b?ing only saving title clauses, and the hon. Member could not expect them to be drawn into a Second Reading debate. With regard to the points on which hon. Mem ers wished information, there were about sixty Amendments, which must cover, he thought, all those points, and he would be quite ready to meet all of them as they arose.
MR. BRIDGEMAXsaid he rose to take part in the debate because he believed he was representing the large majority of his constituents in offering the most strenuous opposition to this clause. Hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to attach a great deal of importance to it so much so that the Prime Minister had condescended to be present for a very considerable time during the discussion, and they alse seemed to imagine that, because there was only a small minority opposed to them, they ought to be allowed to carry the clause through without much discussion, and certainly

1437
without any explanation. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had given no kind of definition of the clause. But he wished to remind them that, if the minority in the House against the Bill was a small one, in comparison it was nothing like so small as that minority in the country who wanted the law altered in the direction indicated by this clause. In his own constituency he had a very good instance of this fact, because a question was put to him by the secretary of the league which desired to alter the law, and he declined to answer it unless it was put to him by someone in his own constituency. The secretary of the league said he would find someone at once to do so. At the end of the day he gave him the name of a gentleman who, he said, would ask the question. When the next day arrived he had not asked the question, and he took the trouble to write to that very gentleman to know whether he wanted to ask it or not, and he never answered. Then the secretary came down again in order to stir up the place, and the only result of his second visit was that towards the end of the day, a gentleman arrived in his conmiittee-room to say that he had been offered half-a-crown if he would ask the question. He took that to be a fairly conclusive proof that his constituents at any rate were not in favour of this proposal. He did not think anyone so far had called the attention of the House to the fact that the women of England had no desire for an alteration in the law. Was that a point they ought to overlook and was there any explanation of that? Could the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill say that that was not a matter of the greatest significance and importance? He said that because, women having no power of expressing their views in that House, they ought to be all the more careful in passing legislation which affected them just as much as, and probably more than, it did those who sought to change the law, and they ought to find out what their opinions were on this subject. Then they came merely down to the question of expediency, and that was the only defence of this measure. That was a defence for any kind of alteration in the marriage law, or for no
1438
marriage law at all. So far as any attempt had ever been made to get statistics about the number of people who had contracted this particular form of illegal union, it had been found that their numbers were not in excess of other kinds of illegal unions, and therefore if there were more illegal unions of any sort than these, it was more expedient to alter the law in favour of them than in favour of this particular one. They were always told that there were large numbers of working men in this country who found it a great hardship not to be allowed to marry their deceased wife's sister. He admitted that it might be a hardship in a certain number of cases, but there were many other hardships connected with the marriage laws. The way in which that remark was received opposite made it perfectly clear that there were a very large number in that House who would be anxious to alter the laws very much more than this Bill proposed to do. In certain cases it might be a considerable hardship where there were a large number of families crowded into one, or two-roomed, dwellings. That, he admitted, was a hardship, but the remedy was to improve the housing of the working classes. He preferred to leave the marriage laws as they were, and to support, whenever he could, measures for the improvement of housing. He did not believe if there were no one or two-roomed dwellings that they would find any support at all from those who desired, on the part of the working classes, to have the law altered. He did not wish to detain the House on this point, but he felt very strongly indeed on the matter, and he would have felt himself very much to blame if he had not raised his voice in protest against this alteration. There were any amount of hardships connected with the marriage, laws. There was hardship in the case of a man whose wife had become insane, or very seriously diseased. If they were going to alter it one way, merely for the sake of pity and because they were sorry for these people, there was no reason why they should not alter it in every way, and he protested that it would be very much better to stand by marriage laws which

1439
had caused this country to be more pure and moral than any other, and not to venture, even by one step—even if it were a small step—to alter the law, especially when it was only asked for by a certain number of people who had already broken it, and by a small number of others who thought it was a hardship,
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYquoted the statement of Lord John Russell that this change, if carried out, must lead to very much greater changes in a short space of time. As one who had consistently opposed the Bill again and again he felt it would not be right to remain silent on that occasion, which might be the last opportunity they would have of voicing the protest of a large number of people against the change proposed in the Bill. He opposed it because he believed that it would remove the barrier which protected the sacredness and purity of family life to which the country owed so much, and which some hon. Members, felt bound to safeguard by every means in their power. It was because they believed that the Bill, if passed, would endanger these things that they had resisted it and would, resist it as long as they had power. They took their stand on the duty of maintaining the purity of family life and the unbroken practice of the Church for so many centuries. If they were wrong they were wrong in the company of men who could not be held to be illiberal, or retrograde, or deaf to anything which was for the good of the people. He spoke of men like the late Archbishop Temple, Lord Hatherley, the well-known Liberal and a man most thoroughly acquainted with the wants and conditions of the working classes in Westminster and other places, Lord Cairns, the Duke of Argyll, as representing the Scottish Church, and many prominent Nonconformists who formerly much more than to-day opposed the proposal which was then before the House. They were brought face to face with the Bill taken up by the Government as it never was before. Therefore the situation was one of extreme gravity, and he felt bound to rise once more to record his protest.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not propose to trouble the House with a
1440
speech on the general objections which he had towards the clause, because he had had an opportunity of doing that before. But there were one or two aspects of the clause which had not been properly considered, because the House had been deprived of the assistance of the lawyers who ordinarily advised the Government. He was glad to see present the Secretary of State for War, who added to many other qualifications that of being a very eminent lawyer. He would ask the Secretary of State for War to make more than a passing reference to the Bill's being made retrospective, but there was one important deficiency which he would like to put before him. He would put it in the form of an illustration which would not ordinarily occur, but which would bring to his mind the kind of difficulty raised by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would see in the proviso to the first clause the words which constituted the deficiency. Supposing a man had been married to his deceased wife's sister and had afterwards married someone else, then did the proposals of the Bill go so far as to make that man a bigamist? Let them suppose that a man married a deceased wife's sister and then went through the form of marriage with a sister of that sister. The man would then have gone through a form of marriage with two sisters. To which sister was he married? [A voice: To both.] To whom was he lawfully married? The marriage with the first sister had not been absolved by his marrying the second. This was only an illustration—and, purposely, he had made it rather extreme—of the kind of difficulties which were aroused by legislation of this sort. But there was a danger of a much more serious type, and likely to be of a much more practical effect. The Bill proposed to set up for the first time a contrast between the civil and the ecclesiastical law. He knew that one of the law officers at an earlier stage had said that the Bill was going to over-ride the ecclesiastical as well as the civil law; but he did not think that the hon. Member had read the Bill. He (Lord Robert Cecil) thought the Bill only affected the civil aspect of marriage and was only intended to do that. From the point of ecclesiastical

1441
law these marriages were to be as unsound and unlawful as ever. In the language of the canon, marriage with a deceased wife's sister was still to be regarded as an incestuous marriage. There were several canons which dealt with the duty of various persons in connection with incestuous marriages. The churchwardens were directed to deal with persons who were guilty of incest, and he presumed, even if this Bill were passed, it would still be their duty to bring to the attention of the ecclesiastical authority anyone who offended by living in union with his deceased wife's sister. He was not saying for the moment whether such a person was right or wrong, but pointing out the duty that would be cast upon others. If these failed to carry out that duty they would expose themselves to suits in the ecclesiastical court. Let hon. Members take the case of ex-communication.[Laughter.] Hon. Members appeared to think there was something essentially comic about that. He did not grudge them the trifling relaxation from the wearisomeness of being kept up to discuss this great change in the marriage law, but he respectfully reminded them that it was not his fault that they Were so kept up. There was a still more scandalous case—a case he which would repudiate in the strongest possible way, but to which he desired to call the attention of the House. It would be technically a duty, though he trusted no one would be so pedantic as to insist on that duty, for a clergyman to refuse burial to such people. It was so under the canon law, though the clergyman might safely disregard it in such a case. In the other case he had cited, however, he very much doubted if the clergyman could safely disregard it. Let them suppose the case of a man who took a strong view about these things: would it not be a great scandal that he should feel bound to carry out the ecclesiastical law and refuse all the rights of Church membership and even burial, thus refusing to recognise a thing which the Legislature had permitted? None of these difficulties had been dealt with or provided for in the least by the promoters of the Bill. They had thrown the Bill on the Table of the House without con-
1442
descending to explain or deal with one single difficulty; they had discussed a great number of principles which they conceived underlay the Bill, but whenever they were asked to deal specifically with any great difficulty the bon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had always said a perfunctory sentence or two in reply and no assistance had been forthcoming from the law officers of the Crown. The Solicitor-General attended one meeting of the Committee upstairs and then, as he submitted, without having read the Bill. He hoped that now, at any rate, there would be a serious attempt to deal with these matters. It was little short of a scandal that legislation dealing with this important topic should be presented to the House with so little thought, care, and explanation. He did not propose to trouble the House with any arguments on the general principles underlying Clause 1 but he trusted they would have some reply to the points he had ventured to make.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)desired to dissociate himself from the speeches made on his own side. He fully sympathised with the Secretary of State for War, knowing as he did what hard work he had to do at the War Office, though he was perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman was fully equal to his task that night. He had listened to many speeches on this Bill in past sessions. If he was not absolutely in favour of the Bill from the first—he came into the House with an open mind on the subject—after listening to the speeches on the question, including the able speeches of Lord Hugh Cecil, he found himself of the same opinion that he held now, and he earnestly hoped that when they went to a division on this clause, which was the essence of the Bill, they would carry it by a very large majority.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he would not have intervened in the debate but for the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet with reference to the position of his co-religionists on this question. He was reminded of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, if he might say so, with all possible

1443
respect, was more responsible than anybody else for the views which were held in regard to his co-religionists on this question and which were not quite correct. He was alluding to quotations which the right hon. Gentleman had frequently made in the House, when this question had been raised, based upon the evidence given by Cardinal Wiseman before a Commission which sat on the Marriage Laws. In reference to that he would like to read from a copy of a letter he had which was written by the late Cardinal Manning, who said—
"Some years ago the bishops laid before Lord Chelmsford's Commission on the Marriage Laws certain points on which modification would be desirable. One was some provision by which the marriage with a deceased wife's sister after a dispensation from the Holy See had been obtained might be legalised. These words of ours have been quoted by the promoters of such marriages as favourable to their views. Nothing was further from the intention of the bishops. First, the law of the Catholic Church forbids and annuls marriage with a deceased wife's sister; secondly, the law of England on this point is to this moment Catholic and supports the discipline of the Church; thirdly, the Holy See can alone dispense in such oases, and it never dispenses except, first, rarely; secondly, with reluctance; and, thirdly, for grave reasons and to avoid greater evils. To abolish the law which prohibits such marriages would have the effect of throwing open as lawful to everybody that which in a few rare and exceptional eases is reluctantly given to avoid greater evils, and this throwing over of the civil law would encourage and multiply such marriages in direct opposition to the discipline of the Catholic Church and to the grave and dangerous disturbance of domestic life."
He would not trouble the House by reading the rest of the letter, and he only quoted the part he had to make clear to hon. Members that at any rate those who opposed legislation of this kind had very high ecclesiastical sanction for their action.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said he would endeavour in a very few words to define the position of the Government. The canon law was no such rigid law as they were accustomed to recognise in the name of the law. It was binding on those whose conscience considered it as binding. The Church of Rome in certain cases would dispense with it.
LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman was no doubt perfectly well
1444
aware that Lord Hardwicke held distinctly that the canon law was binding, so far as it was binding in England at all, on spiritual persons. There was no question that the canons of 1603 were binding on all spiritual persons absolutely.
MR. HALDANEsaid no doubt in the days of consistory courts and consistory law that was so, but they were not living in those times now. If they wanted an illustration of how lightly the canon law was regarded as absolutely binding, he need only refer to the burial law, which the noble Lord himself had said was a law which would not be enforced. These two illustrations only showed the fallacy underlying the entire argument of the noble Lord. They were not dealing with laws which bound the conscience. They believed in leaving people free to follow the dictates of their own conscience. This was not a Bill to compel a man to marry his deceased wife's sister it was a Bill to leave him free to do so if he thought it right. The whole plan of the Bill was perfectly simple. It said that one might follow the dictates of one's own conscience. The only law they recognised was the law of the land. If this Bill passed, Anglican, Catholic, of Nonconformist could follow the dictates of his own conscience, but his civil rights would be defined in the Bill. The principle of the Bill was perfectly simple. For the future anyone was to be free to marry his deceased wife's sister unless some obstacle intervened which a civil Court recognised as fatal.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)said he had not hitheto taken part in any discussions on this question, but if he might judge from what was taking place that night he was never likely to have another opportunity. He had always regarded this question as a social question in which the considerations on either side were very nicely balanced; but it was a question of very great difficulty, of very great importance, and in which the feeling of those who were opposed to the Bill was very acute. Not only that, but the Bill proposed to effect a change in the marriage law, affecting a branch of our law which went into the most intimate and sacred relations of family life. Such a change

1445
ought not to be effected without the fullest consideration which could be brought to bear. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has received it for thirty years."] No Government, so far as he was aware, had before taken up this question during the last thirty years. It had always been a private Member's question. No Government had ever inquired into the matter or had taken even the legal advice of which they saw the necessity, and for the Government to take up a private Member's Bill on this great subject at this period of the session and to force it through the House at that hour of the morning, justified him in determining to oppose the Bill, nice as he considered to be the questions raised on either side as to the propriety of the permission which it proposed to extend to those who wished to marry their deceased wives' sisters.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the Secretary of State for War had told them that each of them should follow the dictates of his own conscience. It was the law of the country that he (the speaker) was dealing with that evening. It was the law of the country, as he understood it, which was binding on them that they should not marry anyone within the degrees of affinity. It was binding on them and on their consciences; it was binding on them and on the legitimacy of their children. It was such questions that they were dealing with, and the question was not in what way was the law of the land to be altered, as it was at present on a perfectly definite and fixed basis, viz., the degrees of affinity, but, if they were once going to alter the law, where did they propose to stop? Was there any possible reason why the Government should stop at this particular point, once they took away the basis on which the law had stood for many years? Surely they must extend it further than this Bill went. Ninety-nine people out of a hundred could not doubt that they were bound to go further, and a Bill which allowed a man to marry his deceased wife's sister must necessarily allow him to marry persons within less degrees of affinity than that. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the principle of the Bill was a very simple
1446
one and easy to understand, namely, that in the future persons should be at liberty to marry a deceased wife's sister. That was a very simple principle, but it was not in the least the principle of the Bill. As a lawyer, that was where to him the difficulty of the Bill came in. It required the most difficult and skilful drafting to make the Bill not retrospective, to ensure that only in future it should be operative, but the Bill went a great deal further, and it said that all such marriages which had occurred in the past, and by the law of the land, and in all conscience at the present moment were no marriages at all, at the passing of the Bill should be perfecth legal. That was the principle of this measure, which was by no means simple from a legal point of view. It became a very much more complicated matter when they adjusted the details necessary to the carrying out of the Bill. Whoever drafted the Bill had a very difficult task, and it required great skill and consideration. It was perfectly obvious that the Bill had not had that careful consideration and drafting, because in the first clause they had the difficulties of dealing with retrospective legislation, and of making marriages, which had been by the law of the land hitherto illegal, suddenly, by one stroke of the pen, legal. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said the Bill was simple, to the fact that by the Bill as it stood, people who had gone through a form of marriage with a deceased wife's sister—assuming that the marriage had turned out unhappily and they had been separated or parted—whether they wished it or not, were legally married the very instant it came into operation. They had difficulties in the case of legitimising the children by the subsequent marriage of the parents; and there were difficulties in connection with vested interests also. There were difficulties in the case of people who, in the hope of succeeding to their relatives, had based their expectations and their mode of life on that hope, but who, on the passing of this Bill, would suddenly find other people legitimised, who before were not legitimate, and so those expectations would be taken away. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would

1447
agree that there were difficulties of a legal character in such retrospective legislation. This was a matter which had always been discussed as a private Member's Bill, and without going into the necessary legal detail which was requisite when they were dealing with a Government Bill. Now it had been taken up by the Government at the end of the session and at the shortest possible notice, so far as the opponents of the Bill were concerned. They only got notice of it at Question time on the previous day, although the promoters must, he feared, have had notice of the discussion coming on a fortnight ago, because he knew that certain preparations were made which obviously indicated a knowledge prior to that of Question time. Those who felt deeply on the question could not possibly all be present for the discussion that evening. On twenty-four hours notice they were asked to deal with Clause 1, which raised not only the greatest ethical principles and the most important questions connected with our social life, but also those complicated legal details which could only be anticipated when the Bill was likely to pass into law. Was that a right way to deal with the question? Was it fair and right to the Opposition, however small and insignificant they might be there, to deal with them thus, and to get a Bill of that kind through the House with notice to the promoters and not to the Opposition? The Government retorted that they should have expected the Bill to be starred, but what possible information could they have had on which to base that expectation? Had not the Government ample work to do without this Bill's being starred? He protested against the passing of the Bill on the short notice they had had of the difficult questions which must necessarily arise.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid it was singularly unfortunate that, when the Government had taken up the Bill in the peculiar circumstances to which his hon. friend had alluded, they should not be honoured by the presence of any law officer of the crown to answer any legal questions which might arise. They were very grateful
1448
to the Secretary of State for War for doing his best to deal with the arguments of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, but he wished to point out that he did not speak necessarily for the law officers of the Crown, or with the authority which they could command, on the legal questions which concerned a particular Bill, although he did not in the least wish to question his eminence as a lawyer. But if it was important to have the law officers of the Crown present when they were discussing a Bill drafted under their supervision, surely it was little short of a scandal that they should not be present when a Bill was being discussed with which they had nothing to do in the matter of drafting, and which, so far as he knew, had never been considered by any responsible lawyer acting for the Government. The Secretary of State for War had dealt with questions about ecclesiastical law raised by his hon. friend, but he did not think he satisfied many on the Opposition side of the House, and he doubted if he satisfied many of those on the other side who realised what the ecclesiastical law really was. The fact that the ecclesiastical law was of importance in this question was admitted in the Bill, because in the first clause there was a proviso, which said that—
"no clergyman should be subject to the penalties, whether civil or ecclesiastical, for refusing to solemnise any such marriage as aforesaid."
It was clearly shown that there was some necessity to recognise the fact that a difference was being made between the common law of the land and the ecclesiastical law which might have serious consequences unless it was provided against. There were cases which had not been provided against, and it was to these that his hon. friend directed the attention of the Government. What was to be the position of an unfortunate clergyman who declined, after the Bill was passed, to give Communion to persons who had gone through the form of marriage contemplated by the Bill? Was that clergyman liable to be sued by those persons for not giving them the rites of the Church? And then if the clergyman did not refuse to give to these

1449
people Communion, as he was bound by the canon law, was he liable to be deprived of his living under the canon law? It seemed to him that the clergyman would be placed in a dilemma in which no man ought to be placed. If he did refuse to give Communion he could be sued; if he did not refuse, he could be deprived of his living. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if there was no means of enforcing the canon law at all; but surely a bishop might consider such a marriage contrary to the doctrines of the Church, and, if so, it was quite conceivable that he would take every step to make a clergyman is his diocese obey the law. And the bishop had the power of enforcing the law. He could deprive the clergyman in the Bishop's Court of his living. It was a monstrous thing that the House should be asked to pass such a measure as this. He thought they were entitled to some legal explanation from the Government, as the Government had seen fit to take up the Bill, and they ought to have some information as to whether the Government intended to insert some amendment to deal with this difficulty.
SIR F. BANBURYquite agreed with his noble friend that it was very necessary to have some legal authority's opinion; but he was quite satisfied with the opinion of the Secretary of State for War, always provided that he had read the Bill. The Secretary of State for War had said there was no compulsion in the Bill to compel a man to many his deceased wife's sister. But there was such compulsion in the Bill. If hon. Members would read the Bill, they would see that the Bill was made retrospectively com pulsory. If a man had married his deceased wife's sister ten years ago, and if they were of opinion they had to separate ["Oh"]—hon. Gentlemen said "oh," but when people were legally married, they often wished they were not—but in this case, the Bill said: "You are to be married whether you like it or not." The Secretary for War was very careful not to reply to the problem put to him with regard to the three sisters mentioned by his hon. friend. If there was any legal person who could reply, it would be the Secretary for War;
1450
but the right hon. Gentleman had passed the question by. The House had had no reason for the starring of the Bill. There was no person to whom a poor man would rather entrust the children of his deceased wife than his deceased wife's sister. Under this Bill, the Government were going to compel a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, otherwise scandal would arise.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid the Solicitor-General was far from well and he had been very busily engaged. He was so unwell that he was obliged to go home, and therefore the Government had asked the hon. Member for Walthamstow to take his place.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he could not give a silent vote nor could he abstain from speaking, because he believed that this Bill would move a religious feeling in his section of the country. He felt that the feelings of his constitutents were not to be trampled upon after twenty-four hours notice. [A MEMBER: Twenty-four years.] The House had just heard that owing to the absence of one of His Majesty's Law Ministers, they would not have guidance upon this important matter. In view of that, it was a scandal to go on, and he moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. SPEAKER (after waiting a few moments): There being no seconder the Motion falls to the ground.
SIR HENRY CRAIKdrew attention to the fact that different marriage laws prevailed in Scotland as compared with England. He asked the Government whether they were prepared to say that that fact did not raise serious difficulties. Would it not be only decent that a Scottish law officer should be present to settle these important points of law when they were applying in a rough and ready way to Scotland a Bill not drafted by Government draftsmen, with no assurance that legal precedents and bearings had been properly examined? In the absence of any Scottish law officer he must move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. ASHLEYseconded the Motion for the adjournment of the debate as a protest against the action of the Government in taking up a Bill and then not having any law officers of the Crown present to advise the House as to the legal points raised in connection with it. He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill just now said in a casual sort of way that an hon. Member, who he understood was a most distinguished member of his profession, but who was not yet a Member of the Government, had kindly consented to help the Government in carrying through the Bill. He was very sorry indeed that the learned Solicitor-General was ill, and if he were the only legal Member of the Government they would not move the adjournment of the debate; but there were other legal Members of the Government, and surely one of them might be there to give his advice.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Henry Craik.)
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODthought the House was entitled to some explanation. There were four members of the legal profession opposite and four Cabinet Ministers, and they were content to put the whole responsibility of answering questions, put in perfectly good faith, on the hon. Member for Walthamstow, whom they all wished to hear, but who was not allowed to speak. For the first time this session he did not spy in the gallery behind Mr. Speaker's Chair any of those strangers who usually were so useful. The Government brought before the House a Bill for which a private Member was responsible, they starred that Bill, they had four or five legal luminaries on the Front Bench, not one of whom could defend the Bill, they had a private Member behind whom they would not allow to speak, and they had not a single Government draftsman in the pen to which they so often retired to advise them. If that was the way in which the Government were going to conduct the business of this part of the session the House would very likely sit to the end of October.
MR. HALDANEdid not think the right hon. Gentleman had heard the whole
1452
of the debate, or he would not think it necessary to reply to all the extraordinary legal points raised. It was only out of respect to the House that he dealt with them shortly. As to the point of Scottish law raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow University, there was absolutely nothing in it. In Scotland, as they knew, marriage with a deceased wife's sister stood on a very different basis from what it did here; that was to say, the actual civil law of the land took more cognisance of it than was the case in England As regarded legitimation by subsequent marriage that did not touch the question on a single point. It was all provided for by the proviso to Clause 1. Then, as to canon law, this Bill had nothing to do with that subject If canon law required amendment no doubt that could be dealt with, but they were not dealing with that here and did not propose to do so. The Bill was of the simplest kind and contained a plain legal proposition about which there was no ambiguity and which required no technical assistance. The matter had been discussed upstairs and for years past over and over again.
LORD R. CECILconfessed that the first speech of the Secretary of State for War surprised him enormously, but the second speech surprised him even more. In the first speech the right hon. Gentleman laid down the extraordinary doctrine that there were no means of altering the ecclesiastical law in this country, and he talked of consistory courts as relics of the middle ages, long since swept away. He was afraid that since the right hon. Gentleman had gone to the War Office he had forgotten a very large amount of his legal knowledge. Of course, the consistory courts were in full force and had complete legal jurisdiction over all the clergy at the present day for eccleiastieal purposes.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that this was not relevant to the question before the House.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was misled by the speech of the Secretary of State for War, who scarcely referred to the question before the House. He would leave the right hon. Gentleman's legal observations and ask the House to

1453
consider the position which the Opposi tion were attacking. There was no law officer of the Crown present to advise them. Except for a brief period upstairs they had not had the assistance of a law officer on the Bill. A casual Member of the Ministerial Party who had some knowledge of the law used to do his best to assist the promoters of the Bill in Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman had explained that the Solicitor-General was unable to be present and the alternative the right hon. Gentleman suggested was not that the Attorney-General should be present but that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, for whom the House had a profound respect, should take upon himself the duties of a law officer of the Crown. The duty of the law officers was to advise the House on questions of law. With the courage of a bureaucrat the Secretary of State for War shook his head. If the law officers were not present there ought to be somebody who was directly responsible to the House. It was a monstrous insult to the House to answer their objections by saying: "Here is a private Member who is skilled in the law, and we put him on this occasion in the position of one of the law officers and he can answer any questions." The hon. and learned Gentleman, who took, as he thought, a much more proper view of his position, had not answered them. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill admitted the necessity for some legal luminary to be present to advise the House. Under the circumstances, he contended that no Opposi tion ever had a stronger case for moving the adjournment, and if hon. Members I opposite really valued the position of the House and that which private Members ought to occupy they would vote for the Motion.
MR. F. E. SMITHsincerely trusted that either the Motion would be taken at once to a division or would be abandoned by his hon. friend who moved it. He had no doubt whatever that there were Members present who were fully competent to advise the House as to sany question of law that was likely to be raised in the discussion, and he would not do his hon. friends the injustice of thinking that they imagined there was any
1454
necessity for obtaining any legal advice which could not now be obtained in the House. It was perfectly well known that they were bitterly and conscientiously opposed to the Bill and that they meant to destroy it if they could by every Parliamentary obstruction possible. He did not blame them; he would do the same himself if he held the same views that they did with perfect sincerity. He submitted, however, that for thirty years an overwhelming majority of Members had been returned to vote for this Bill. The House of Commons, for all those years, had voted for the principle of the Bill, and they were now given an opportunity of placing it on the Statute Book. He, for one, hoped the Government meant business by taking up the Bill. He hoped, if it was necessary to sit till a quarter to two the following night, that the Government and those who were really in earnest over the Bill; would not fail to do so, and he could promise, as a private Member, that such small assistance as he could give them would not be wanting. With a great disinclination to dissociate himself from his friends—whose methods he greatly admired—he would yet endeavour to assist generally in passing a Bill dealing with a measure on which he had very strong views.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir HENSY FOWLER,)said that the history of this Bill, so far as the Government was concerned, had not been stated. While the Bill was in progress, the Solicitor-General was advising the Government with reference to it. When it came before the House, and during its long consideration in the Committee Stage, the Solicitor-General answered all the questions which had been put that evening. He was personally the legal adviser of the Government and responsible for the Bill, and he was perfectly satisfied with its present shape. He had told him so himself, but he was literally compelled, in obedience to his medical adviser, to leave the House, although he had not intended to do so, at eleven o'clock. He had asked his friend the Member for Walthamsto v, if any question did arise in law, to render any assistance he could. The Government had not been guilty of

1455
any discourtesy to the House. They were perfectly justified in the course they had taken.
MR. J. WARDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER with held his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he agreed with his hon. friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool that an overwhelming majority of the electors of the country were in favour of the Bill. But he was bound to say that the supporters of the Bill on his side of the House had had their sympathies with the Bill very considerably strained by the methods which the Government had adopted for getting it passed. Apart from the arguments against taking the Bill at such short notice, and against taking it at all at that hour of the evening, there were additional observations as to the method of answering arguments from the Opposition Benches adopted by the Government, and by individual Members of the Government. He did not think any supporter of the Bill in the House would deny that there were, in connection with that Bill, very large and grave issues, which, however fully they might have been debated in the past, yet required at this stage to be elucidated, and he was bound to say that the methods which the Government had adopted for making them clear were not likely to facilitate the progress of the Bill. If the adjournment of the House had not been moved he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would have answered many points which had been put to him. They had what he thought was the most extraordinary position of a private Member being appointed, for the time, a temporary member of the Government—not only a temporary member, but a silent member of the Government, although appointed by them to be their official legal representative in connection with the Bill. It was incredible that the Government should constantly adopt these methods for getting Bills passed, and, personally, he was not
1456
surprised that almost every week a Master of the Horse or an ex-Liberal Prime Minister was shed by the Government. The only surprise to him was that the Government had still left behind them a few hon. Gentlemen who were ready to support and cheer them if they chose to take business at that time of the morning. He was sincerely anxious to see the Bill passed, and he proposed to say very few words, as he was not anxious in the least to delay business. But he thought they would not be human—and hon. Members opposite would like also to register the same protest if they dared to do so—if they did not protest against the methods adopted by the Government for passing a Bill—on which they felt quite as strongly and earnestly as his noble friend behind him—methods which could not but discredit a Bill which was so unfortunate as to be adopted by the Government.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid his opposition to the Bill rested mainly on the manner in which it had been pressed on. He was quite satisfied that if the Government was to be advised in this matter by a private Member there was no one on the other side of the House more competent to do so than the hon. Member for Walthamstow. But they were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, that it was the Solicitor-General, who had advised in regard to the drafting of the Bill, and trat he was satisfied with the drafting as prepared. But the legal difficulties which arose were greater from the fact that the Bill was made retrospective. The Solicitor-Grneral was in full possession of all the possible legal objections to the Bill, with any difficulties which might arise; but he was unable to be there through illness. Was that not sufficient ground for postponing the consideration of the Bill until they had had an opportunity of taking the advice which could be given by the hon. Gentleman?
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid they had been waiting for years, and the Bill had been discussed in Parliament and outside. There were thousands of good women waiting, with a

1457
patience that amounted to pathos, to be put in a position in which they ought to be placed. They had been waiting all these years, and now the time had come; there was an opportunity which might not recur again for years, and he hoped that this delay, which amounted to a national scandal, would be put an end to that night. At any rate, he would give what assistance he could to it, for the sake of morality, for the sake of justice, for the sake of thousands of the women of the country, and what was more, for the sake of thousands of the poorer classes, who were living in a manner they considered tobe honest, but who needed to be put within the bounds of legality. He thought the reasons which had been advanced for the adjournment were altogether inadequate. He hoped the Government, having begun this debate, would, if it took all day and all night, go through with it.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid it took some of them on that side of the House a good deal by surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, whom a good many of them had always regarded as rather a purist in constitutional matters, should think it quite an ordinary occurrence that in the regrettable absence through illness of the Solicitor-General, and for which they were all sorry, his duties should devolve on a private Member.
MR. MARKHAMrose to a point of order. Standing Order 19 said that where an hon. Member insisted repeating his own arguments and those of other Members he was out of order. Seeing that the statements about the Solicitor-General had been repeated already by at least ten speakers, he asked if the noble Lord was in order in referring again to the absence of the law officers of the Crown?
MR. SPEAKER: I am perfectly well acquainted with the Standing Order, and I have already called attention to it once before. If it is necessary, I will put it into force.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that he drew attention to the point because the right hon. Gentleman thought it
1458
quite natural that these legal duties should devolve upon a private Member, and not upon one of many eminent lawyers of the Cabinet, who were sitting on the Front Bench opposite. It seemed to him that the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland might very well answer the legal points which they had raised. He was equally amazed to find his hon. friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool taking up the attitude he had adopted. He could quite understand that hon. Members might be in favour of the Bill, but did they want it, when passed, to be a workable Bill, and a Bill the difficulties I in which had been freely discussed and decided? Did they want it to be a Bill which should lead to litigation in the future, or one which should stand on its own merits, and not cause those frequent disputes which would I otherwise inevitably occur? Although they might be in favour of the Bill, there was no reason why it should be passed that night. Why should that particular night be selected, when they were unfortunately deprived of the presence of the Solicitor-General? It was admitted by the Government that he was the only law officer who knew anything about it. If that was not admitted by the Government, then there was no lawful reason why the Attorney-General should not take his place. They hoped the Solicitor-General's health would be improved some time during this session. The discussion might perfectly well be adjourned to another night, without running any risk of the Bill not getting through. Hon. Members argued that they must at once pass the Bill because of the immense demand for it in the country, and because for thirty years it had been before the country, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley talked about the thousands of women who were waiting in patience for it. It was almost pathetic to think that with all these hon. Gentlemen returned, according to the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, to pass the Bill, and with the fact that the Bill had been before the country for thirty years, that the result should be that the number of

1459
objections to the measure was greater than the number in favour of it. He asked, was the Bill likely to get the serious discussion it deserved if hon. Members proceeded to carry it at that hour in the morning when the House was obviously not in a frame of mind for properly discussing it I If the Government thought they were going to cow the Opposition by their huge majority

AYES.

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Valentia, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Sir Henry Craik and Mr.

Cave, George

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

Ashley.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Duncan, G (Barrow-in-Furness

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hudson, Walter

Alden, Percy

Elibank, Master of

Hyde, Clarendon

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Essex, R. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Evans, Samuel T.

Jardine, Sir J.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

Everett, R. Lacey

Jenkins, J.

Beauchamp, E.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Beck, A. Cecil

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bertram, Julius

Findlay, Alexander

Jowett, F. W.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kekewich, Sir George

Black, Arthur W.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Kelley, George D.

Bowerman, G W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Laidlaw, Robert

Brace, William

Fullerton, Hugh

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gill, A. H.

Lambert, George

Branch, James

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Lamont, Norman

Bright, J. A.

Glover, Thomas

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gooch, George Peabody

Leese, Sir Joseph A.(Accrington

Byles, William Pollard

Grant, Corrie

Lehmann, R. C.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harvich)

Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lewis, John Herbert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

Hall, Frederick

Lough, Thomas

Chance, Frederick William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Lupton, Arnold

Cheetham, John Frederick

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Clough, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire. N. E

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Haworth, Arthur A.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mackarness, Frederic C

Collins, Sir Wm J.(S. Pancras, W

Hedges, A. Paget

Maclean, Donald

Cooper, G. J.

Helme, Norval Watson

Macpherson, J. T.

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

M'Callum, John M.

Cory, Clifford John

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

M'Crae, George

Cox, Harold

Henry, Charles S.

Maddison, Frederick

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

Mallet, Charles E.

Crooks, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Crossley, William J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Holt, Richard Durning

Markham, Arthur Basil

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

they were very much mistaken; and if they thought they were going to do anything to restore the dignity of the House, as they had so often promised in the country, they must adjourn the debate.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 208. (Division List No. 425.)

Marnham, F. J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Massie, J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thornton, Percy M.

Montgomery, H. G.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ure, Alexander

Morrell, Philip

Robinson, S.

Walsh, Stephen

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Nicholls, George

Rose, Charles Day

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncastr

Rowlands, J.

Ward, W. Dudley (South'mp'n

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Samuel, Herbert F. (Cleveland)

Wardle, George J.

Nuttall, Harry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Waring, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Seddon, J.

Waterlaw, D. S.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Seely, Colonel

Weir, James Galloway

O'Grady, J.

Shackleton, David James

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Paulton, James Mellor

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wiles, Thomas

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wills, Arthur Walters

Pollard, Dr.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Radford, G. H.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

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

Summerbell, T.

Pease.

Rickett, J. Compton

Sutherland, J. E.

Original Question put.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cox, Harold

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hedges, A. Paget

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crooks, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Alden Percy

Crossley, William J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Allen, Acland (Christchurch)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury, E.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Henry, Charles S.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Higham, John Sharp

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Beauchamp, E.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Beck, A. Cecil

Elibank, Master of

Holt, Richard Durning

Bellairs, Carlyon

Essex, R. W.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Berridge, T. H. D.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bertram, Julius

Evans, Samuel T.

Hudson, Walter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Everett, R. Lacey

Hyde, Clarendon

Black, Arthur W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Idris, T. H. W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Brace, William

Ferens, T. R.

Jardine, Sir J.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jenkins, J.

Branch, James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bright, J. A.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bylcs, William Pollard

Fullerton, Hugh

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gill, A. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Kekewich, Sir George

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Glover, Thomas

Kelley, George D.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor.

Gooch, George Peabody

Laidlaw, Robert

Chance, Frederick William

Grant, Corrie

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Cheetham, John Frederick

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

Lambert, George

Clough, William

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Lamont, Norman

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Hall, Frederick

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Lehmann, R. C.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex., Harwich

Cooper, G. J.

Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Corbett, C. H.(Sussex., E. Gr'st'd

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire. N. E.

Lewis, John Herbert

Cary, Clifford John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Lough, Thomas

The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, I 26. (Division List No. 426.)

Lupton, Arnold

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Radford, G. H.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Summerbell, T.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rendall, Athelstan

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Maclean, Donald

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Thornton, Percy M.

Macpherson, J. T.

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Callum, John M.

Rickett, J. Compton

Turnour, Viscount

M'Crae, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Ure, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walsh, Stephen

Mallet, Charles E.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'rd

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Robinson, S.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wardle, George J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Rose, Charles Day

Waring, Walter

Marnham, F. J.

Rowlands, J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Massie J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Waterlow, D. S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Weir, James Galloway

Montgomery, H. G.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Morrell, Philip

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Seddon, J.

Wiles, Thomas

Nicholls, George

Seely, Major

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Shackleton, David James

Wills, Arthur Walters

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Nuttall, Harry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Grady, J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool. Walton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Stanger, H. Y.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Pollard, Dr.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

NOES.

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylcbone, E.)

Nicholson, Win, G. (Petersfield

Ashley, W. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Valentia, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gretton, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Cave, George

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr.

Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH.

Bowles.

SIR WILLIAM ANSONwanted to know what was meant by the first line of the clause. It appeared to him that the draftsman had in one sentence tried to find words which were applicable both to those who had married in the past and to those who wished to marry in the future. The word "marriage "was not applicable to those who were married in the past because what they had contracted was not marriage. The words "form of marriage" seemed hardly sufficient, because they wanted the intention of marriage, otherwise a marriage in private theatricals might have the meaning of marriage under this clause. He moved the omission of the words "form of marriage" in
1464
order to ascertain whether they were intended to meet all the circumstances of the case, and what was meant by contracting a "form of marriage."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'form of marriage.'"—(Sir w. Anson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid the words "form of marriage or" were put in in Committee so as to meet the Opposition, although the words seemed to be perfectly useless.
LORD R. CECILsaid that perhaps he might regard himself as being the legal adviser of the Government on this Amendment. The Bill originally read "no marriage contracted between a man and his deceased wife's sister within the realm." His point—and he thought it was a sound one—was that they could not say that a marriage was contracted between a man and his deceased wife's sister because such a union was not a marriage, and therefore, to set out by saying that such a marriage should not be void was wrong drafting, because the thing they were saying was not void had never had any existence at all. That was the reason why he thought that the words "form of marriage" should be inserted, though he admitted they could not say both "form of marriage" and "marriage"—it ought to be one or the other. He did not know that the legal effect of the Bill would be very different, but as a matter of logic he thought "form of marriage" was right, and "marriage" was wrong.
MR. HALDANEsaid the addition to the drafting was put in at the instance of the noble Lord. He himself thought it was hypercriticism. He favoured the proposition as it originally stood, and the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University.
MR. CAVEthought the Amendment was an improvement on the Bill. He was not one of those who supported his noble friend in Committee on this point, and he did not see how a form of marriage could be void.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked the hon. Member for Walthamstow whether it was not the case that "form of marriage" was a good form of words to refer to marriage heretofore and hereafter. Although it was true that a marriage hereafter would be a civil contract because legalised as such, it was equally true to say—and he thought it was due to the susceptibilities of those who had held that these were not marriages—that it was only a form of marriage heretofore. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment.
MR. ASHLEYthought the actual Amendment made nonsense. It ought to be "form of marriage or."
THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Baronet withdraw his Amendment and move it in the form suggested by the hon. Gentleman?
SIR WILLIAM ANSON SIR WILLIAM ANSON said the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had just called his attention to the point, and he would be glad to alter the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'form of marriage or.'"—(Sir W. Anson.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved an Amendment to confine the operation of the Bill to persons who should have declared, themselves not to be members of the Church of England. There was no doubt, he said, that the law of the Church of England rendered these marriages illegal and improper. No attempt was made to alter that law, and no loyal member of the Church of England could really enter into a marriage of this sort, whatever the Legislature might do in reference to the civil contract. Until the law of the Church of England was altered, only those who were not members of the Church of England should be permitted to enter into these contracts. Hon. Gentlemen who took a different view with regard to the Bill might not agree with him, but it was right that they should consider this point as all other points.
MR. RAWLINSONseconded.
Amendment proposed—
'"In page 1, line 7, after the word 'marriage,' to insert the words 'between persons who shall have declared themselves not to be members of the Church of England.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he could not accept the Amendment, which was moved upstairs in Committee by the noble Lord and fully discussed.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could quite understand that there were members of the Church of England who were desirous that the Bill should become law, who thought that, after all, the prejudices and the law of the Church of England might be wrong. But if that was so, the very first thing the promoters of the Bill ought to do was to see that the canon law of the Church of England was altered. He did not pretend to be an authority on the canon law of the Church of England. But his noble friend was an authority, and he understood from him that it would be perfectly possible to arrange with Convocation that the canon law of the Church of England should be altered. If that were so, he saw no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not have taken that step before he brought in the Bill. If he could get up and give any valid reason why that should not be done it might possibly change the vote he (Sir F. Banbury) was about to give, but short of that he would certainly support his noble friend. He really saw no reason, beyond this, that the desire of the right hon. Gentleman was to force the Bill through in the simplest and shortest manner possible. It might have taken a considerable time to obtain the desired alteration in the canon law, but it would have been more satisfactory. If the Amendment of his noble friend were accepted it would be going a considerable step in the direction which he thought was right, and he would then be able to alter the canon law, and to bring in another Bill in another session of Parliament.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid they all respected the sincere position which certain hon. Members took towards the Bill, but he was surprised that a member of the Church of England should move such an Amendment. What would happen? Two people were in love with one another. There was a rivalry set up between the love for the Church and the love for the woman. The love for the woman would prevail, and they would consequently, although sincere members of the Church
1468
of England, leave that Church and declare themselves not to be members of the Church of England. They were bound to do so. No two people in those circumstances would ever, for the sake of remaining in the Church of England, give up each other; that was against human nature. Would anyone contradict that? Would the noble Lord contradict it? Then what was he doing? He was dealing a blow to the Church of England, and once having left the Church of England in order to get married the chances were that these people would not return to the Church. Therefore, from the Church of England's point of view he would recommend the withdrawal of this wonderful Amendment. Personally he was no enemy of the Church of England.
LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had intervened in the debate was always extremely interesting, not only to those who agreed with him, but to those who differed. The speech just delivered had been particularly interesting to him as it threw a light on the right hon. Gentleman's conception of membership of a religious body. His conception of a religious body was, as he understood it, a kind of club which was desirous of having as many people in it as they could possibly get, quite irrespective of their opinions or conduct. They must have no rules in that club which would conflict with the natural passions and desires of any possible members. The right hon. Gentleman said with great force that when the love of woman and love of the Church were in conflict, the love of woman would prevail. He did not think he had quite considered how far that principle would go. Was he going to abolish all restraint between the sexes, because the principle went as far as that? Unfortunately, it was the case that men loved women without any idea of marriage at all.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: That does not apply in this case.
LORD R. CECILasked if the Church was to have no restriction on marriage at all. The right hon. Gentleman evidently thought that the Church as a Church should have no restriction, because if it did there would be conflicts between love of woman and the Church, and the former would prevail. That argument meant the abolition of all moral law. The right

1469
hon. Gentleman's proposition was quite simple, and was stated with epigrammatic force.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he must ask the noble Lord not to misrepresent him. What he said was this—that as the Amendment declared that they should not be members of the Church of England, all he said was that the attachment between the two would lead them to declare themselves not members of the Church of England in order to get married, and having declared that, they were not likely to return.
LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman had repeated with great force exactly what he had said. He was quite sure he did not appreciate how far his principles carried him. His principle was, broadly, that they were not to have a rule of membership of the Church of England which would in any way restrain a man from marrying any woman whom he happened to love. That was really what he did mean.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Oh, no. The position will be that these two people will be no longer members of the Church of England, and therefore not subject to the rules of that Church.
LORD R. CECIL: That is just what I said. I do not desire, however, to press the matter. I think the House sees that whatever may be said against this Amendment, it is not open to the criticism levelled against it by the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment negatived.
MR. EVELYN CECIL MR. EVELYN CECIL moved to leave out the words "heretofore or." He said this Amendment raised the whole question of the retrospective action of the Bill. There were certain Members who would be much more willing to assent to the passing of the Bill if it did not, by being retrospective, infringe one of the first principles of legislation. Let the House imagine how far they were going to be carried. If this kind of principle was to be universally adopted they would allow a lawbreaker to defy the law and then bring in legislation to condone his action. That was really a premium on defying and breaking the law, and no provision in the Bill showed more clearly what its object really was
1470
than this particular provision. He, and those who thought with him, said that the Bill was really brought in to whitewash people who had already broken the law; and if that was to be the line on which Parliament was going to pass legislation, they would find themselves in confusion very soon indeed. Let him take one or two instances. Supposing, for instance, hon. Gentlemen opposite felt strongly about passive resistance—were they going to bring in a Bill at once to whitewash all passive resisters? If they were going to oppose this Amendment, why should they not have legislation for passive resisters, and if they were willing to whitewash passive resisters in accordance with their action of resisting this Amendment, did they propose to whitewash others if they were passively to resist, say, an Education Bill next year I The whole principle was most mischievous and vicious, and it was high time strong language should be used about it. They had an instance the other day of the tendency of the Party now in 'power to condone breaches of the law. It was within the recollection of most hon. Members that they had an interesting discussion on the salaries of teachers in Merionethshire, and in that case the Government did their best to condone the action of the Merionethshire County Council in refusing to pay the non-provided school teachers by the date that their salaries were due, while they paid the council school teachers. The argument the other day which was more or less condoned by the Government was that it was a matter of conscience on the part of the Merionethshire County Council, and that therefore, in fact, they were justified in the action they took. The plea for persons who had married a deceased wife's sister already was that it was a matter of conscience, he supposed, and that therefore they ought to be whitewashed. He hoped the analogy was now plain to hon. Members opposite. This principle of legislation he could not repeat too strongly was a vicious one. For that reason, he strongly urged on the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept the Amendment to allow the Bill only to apply to the future. He did not speak only for himself, but there were hon. Members on that side of the House and certainly some people in the country who would have far less objection to the Bill than they had at present

1471
if his Amendment were accepted. There was another side to the matter which was also important. If the Bill was made retrospective, it might involve them in many complications which were not quite obvious at first sight. The hon. Member for East Marylebone had referred to a man marrying three sisters, which the House treated with laughter because hon. Members thought it an extreme case. If he took another case and did not make it so extreme, hon. Members would see that it applied to his Amendment. If a man married, and his wife died, and then he married his deceased wife's sister, and got tired of her, and then married anybody else, what would be the result if his Amendment was not adopted? The Bill was retrospective and therefore applied to the so-called wife number two. The Bill made the woman of whom the husband had got tired his legal wife, and if, in the meantime, he had married someone else, were the second and third wives both legal wives? What would be the situation? This was an extremely complicated situation, about which he would like to have the best legal opinion. He saw in his place the Solicitor-General for Scotland. He thought there might be some hope as the House had been deprived of the services of the English law officers that they might get some opinion from him. Failing him, he would ask for an answer from the hon. Mem-for Walthamstow, more particularly as he had sat so silent the whole evening.
M R. CAVEseconded the Amendment, which he thought raised a most important question. He hoped the House would get something more than a formal refusal and would have some answer to the arguments advanced. He wished to point out that persons who had married in this way had committed a deliberate breach of the Statute law. It would be the worst possible precedent to give Parliamentary sanction to illegal acts done deliberately, and with full knowledge that those acts were a breach of the law of the land. If these marriages were to be validated, it would be difficult to ask Parliament not to validate other marriages made with persons in other degrees of affinity. He remembered that Mr. Gladstone some years ago got some figures showing the number of marriages not only between men and their deceased wives' sisters,
1472
but also between men and women within other prohibited degrees. Mr. Gladstone was surprised to find how numerous were the marriages within these other prohibited degrees. He was bound to say that if a retrospective effect was given to this Bill, it would be difficult hereafter to resist a claim by those persons who had committed a similar offence within other degrees of affinity to have their marriages validated. One other point. By making these marriages valid, the House would be raising very difficult questions affecting the law of property. No one who had paid attention to that matter would doubt that grave difficulties would be caused. By this Bill they would be upsetting legitimate expectations. They would be giving to one person property which, but for that Bill, would go to another. He did not put the property argument first, but he thought it a real and valid argument. He knew many people who were in favour of the proposal to make these marriages valid in the future, and yet were strongly opposed to giving the Bill a retrospective effect.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he would like to ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment. There were thousands of innocent children at the present moment in this country who would, if this Amendment were passed, be, in the eye of the law, bastards, and have no rights that legitimate children had. But they were the children of men and women who had lived their lives loyally and true to one another, virtuous in every way, and who had lived subject to a higher law than any Church law as man and wife. Did the hon. Gentleman say that those people were living in sin or anything approaching to sin?
MR. EVELYN CECIL: Yes, certainly. Would my right hon. friend legitimatise all illegitimate children?
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he would legitimatise children of those who had gone through the form of marriage and who were loyally true to one another. There were also the people who came from the Colonies and brought their children with them. The children who were regarded as legitimate in Australia became bastards when they came to this country. There was a grim ascetic-

1473
tinge of revenge in the Amendment. His hon. friend had said it was time to use strong language, and he agreed that it was indeed time to use strong language when an Amendment of that kind was brought forward. He would ask his hon. friend on the grounds of humanity, of fairness, and of pity and sympathy with the thousands of innocent children brought into the world under the conditions he had named to withdraw his Amendment. He was sure he would not regret it if he did. He was sure that his hon. friend would not wish to go into the division lobby and to have the stigma of having divided the House on an Amendment like that.
MR. SIMONsaid that even the most retiring private Member might be permitted to have a word on this Amendment. It was no doubt a substantial Amendment, though it was one which had been very fully discussed in previous stages of the Bill. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had raised what he had been pleased to describe as an important point, and he had bad the good fortune to find as a seconder a well-known legal gentleman. But the hon. and learned Member who seconded the Amendment fought very shy of any suggestion that there was a legal conundrum raised. The answer to the question raised by the hon. Member was not one which required lawyers to settle. There was no legal difficulty involved, and all that was required for any hon. Member to answer it for himself was that he should read Clause 1 with reasonably close attention. The solution of the problem, if problem it could be called, was found in perfectly plain language at the end of the clause. The problem was, supposing that a man had already gone through the form of marriage with his deceased wife's sister, that he had got tired of her and had subsequently married a woman who stood in no previous relationship whatever to him, what would be his position after the passing of the Bill? He thought he was right in assuming that this was the question of the hon. Member. The answer was, that where a man had gone through a form of marriage which was valid under the law as it then stood, his earlier form of marriage with his deceased wife's sister would not be affected by the Bill. He
1474
understood that this received the approval of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge. The other matter which had been raised was, he thought—and it had been put with great force by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment—that it was dangerous to go in for retrospective legislation in matters of that kind. Did the House recognise that the House of Commons had repeatedly in that Parliament, and in previous Parliaments, passed Bills for validitating marriages which were not valid? It was done for many reasons. Sometimes it was because the building in which the ceremony took place was not licensed, but for many other reasons, and in all cases the Act was made retrospective. The objection which had been made to the Bill would have been applicable in such cases.
MR. CAVEsaid the marriages the hon. and learned Member had referred to were marriages which at the time when they were solemnised were thought by the parties to be in conformity with the laws of the State.
MR. SIMONsaid the objection that was raised to making the Bill retrospective, raised questions of great perplexity as to property and legitimacy of children, but every one of those questions of complexity was raised in every case where they had a ceremony which was invalid, but which was made valid by legislation. The answer Was none the loss effective because of the distinction pointed out by the hon. Member. The real foundation for the opposition which they on that side of the House put to the proposal in the Amendment was on the ground put before the House by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, that it would be intolerable if the House were to say to children existing at the moment in the position of illegitimate children: "You are not to come under the benefits of this Act; this Act is to be deliberately confined to future children." That would be to make differences and distinctions which he was sure would not commend themselves to the kindly feelings of anyone. While he well understood that some Hon. Members opposite took a strong view about that Bill and from purely conscientious motives disapproved of it, they would see that if the Bill

1475
was to be passed it should be passed in such a form as to do no violence to the feelings they all had at the bottom of their hearts.
MR. RAWLINSONthought the speech of the hon. and learned Member was a good illustration of the dangers of taking such important business at that hour, for he had put forward a proposition which in calmer hours of the day he would never have put forward. The hon. and learned Member had admitted the difficulties of retrospective legislation so far as marriages were concerned, but had put forward the eases of marriages which were supposed to be valid in the first instance, but became invalid for some reason. But the hon. Member knew that in all those cases where Bills were put forward to make those marriages valid everybody believed them at the time of the marriage to be valid marriages, and the distinction was that in those case? everybody believed at the time that they were born that the children were legitimate. Everybody thought those children were legitimate and continued to regard them as legitimate till the mistake was discovered and Parliament stepped in. Of many such cases in his memory there was one in which people were married by a man who was believed to be a clergyman of the Church of England, but who turned out to be no clergyman at all. The people who had gone through the form of marriage before that man had to have an Act passed to make those marriages valid. The children of the people married by that man were believed to be legitimate. In that case of course it was idle to suggest that any of the considerations which had been mentioned arose. In the case of the people with whom they wished to deal, however, all those people knew at the time that the marriages were invalid and that the children who were born would be illegitimate, and would be illegitimate unless that Act legitimatised them. All the considerations with regard to property indicated by the hon. and learned Member did not arise in those cases. The proposition as to the difficulties which would arise and which were described by the hon. and learned Member as conundrums was put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone in the first instance, but was revived by the hon. Member and revived wrongly on
1476
one detail. The question put by the noble Lord was as to the position of a man who married his wife and on her death went through the form of marriage with her two sisters. That was the question in the first instance, and no answer had been given to it. No answer could be given to it. That there were genuine difficulties involved by the Bid no one could doubt. Apart from the legal questions the hon. and learned Member had made a speech which was unjustifiable, but he had been led away by the example of his right hon. friend, who said that out of pity for the children they ought to pass that Bill that night. They were told to look to those innocent children and out of the kindness of their hearts to legitimatise them. But every illegitimate child was innocent. If they said every illegitimate child was to be legitimatised then there was a great deal to be said for their argument, for every single argument which had been used in connection with that particular class of illegitimate child referred equally to every illegitimate child. To carry his right non. friend's argument to its proper conclusion they must make every illegitimate child legitimate. There was no half-way house, the argument must be applied equally to all illegitimate children. That was a very dangerous doctrine. They all sympathised with the children, but that hardly met the case. The right hon. Gentleman said that these marriages had been valid, but had not one heard the argument frequently applied to other people on certain occasions? They were dangerous arguments, and he was sorry to draw any distinction between the sides of the House when they did not exist. If they once began the legitimation of children by a subsequent marriage it was a very dangerous type of argument, and if they once appealed to sentiment—kindness, pity, and justice—it would at once cover a far wider field than simply people who had married their deceased wives' sisters, and would apply to all other people who had married other relations within the prohibited degrees of affinity. For these reasons he ventured to ask the House not to deal with this question otherwise than upon the basis of what was fair and right, and not upon the basis merely of sympathy for illegitimate children. They ought to deal with the question upon the ground of

1477
expediency. That was the real question they had to deal with.
SIR HENRY FOWLERasked how the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to deal with the case of a man who married his deceased wife's sister and had three children prior to the passing of this Act. After the passing of this Act the parties might be re-married in order to dissipate all doubts, and if they had three other children, did he propose that those three subsequent children should be legitimate or illegitimate?
Mr. RAWLINSONsaid he had no difficulty in answering the question at all. Assuming that his hon. friend's Amendment was carried, it would be exactly the same as at the present time. It happened every day in one's legal experience that a man was living with a person who was not his wife and had illegitimate children. He afterwards married and had other children. The consequence was that the latter were legitimate and the former illegitimate. In that respect the English law differed from the law of many other countries. The law of Scotland, of course they knew, took a different aspect.
SIR J. JARDINEsaid the argument of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge was answered by the long established law of Scotland which made bastard children legitimate if their parents afterwards joined in lawful wedlock. The same view was taken as regards the Church of England in olden time as soon as this question had become a burning one, which was when the clergy of the Church of England took to marrying. A law of Henry VIII, one of the Six Articles, forbade their matrimony on penalty of death and forfeiture of property. The Statute 2 and 3 Edward VI., Chap. 21, was however passed to abolish all positive laws against the marriage of priests, but the profound dislike of these unions, based on religious morality, survived, and people were long in the habit of pointing the finger of scorn at these clergymen's children, so that fresh legislation had to be resorted to, the Statute 5 and 6 Edward VI., Chap. 12, which says in its preamble that—
"Divers evil disposed persons do untruly and very slanderously say that it was but a permission, so that many people counted priests' children bastards."
1478
The law enacted therefore that the matrimony of all and every priest heretofore and hereafter was valid. These Reformation Statutes were, however, repealed under Queen Mary, but revived again under James I., when the matter was settled for all time, and priests' children again declared to be legitimate, any canon or constitution notwithstanding.
MR. BOWLESsaid that for his part he attached the greatest importance to the retrospective character of the Bill. If the retrospective provision were taken out he did not say he would be entirely reconciled because he would not, but certainly, so far as he was concerned, the greater part of his objections would be removed. They had to deal here with two classes of persons according to the arguments that had been put forward: they had to deal with parents and with children. With regard to parents, it seemed enough to say that if two persons with their eyes open entered into a union of this kind, knowing perfectly well all the time, as every one of them either did or ought to, that they were contracting an irregular and improper union, which, if it resulted in any issue, would render that issue illegitimate, they ought not to come to the House of Commons asking to have that union legalised in order to legitimise their children. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had ransacked history for some precedents in the matter. He had gone back to Edward VI., and quoted the preamble of an Act which legitimised the children of priests who had married before the passing of that Act, but the hon. Gentleman did not remind the House that that was merely an Act for the removal of doubts. The marriagos of those priests to which the Act referred were perfectly legal marriages; the marriage of a priest was made legal long before the Act of Edward VI. The removing of doubts was one thing, but he said without fear of contradiction that there was no precedent whatever in the history of this country for making marriage unions legal, and for legitimising children who, before the passing of the Act, were illegitimate without any doubt, and to the knowledge of their parents. He fully recognised, as everybody must, the hard case of the children of those unions. Everybody must see that their case was deserving of consideration, but

1479
he had two remarks to make on the argument ad misericordiam of the children. If the mere fact that a child was innocent was to be held as a ground for making it legitimate, they would be bound to legitimise every illegitimate child. There was no escaping from that. The argument was a mere appeal to the pity which everyone must feel for children in that position. It was no argument at all for seeking out one particular class of child and legitimising it. This Bill, however, did not legitimise, but only half legitimised. It was perfectly clear that these children, as compared with the children of other marriages, were to have no rights to property. He commended that to the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Bordesley. For his part he thought that that was a great, clear, and common-sense objection to the Bill. It might be right, but he thought it was not, to say that a man might in future marry his deceased wife's sister; but it could not be right to

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hudson, Walter

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hyde, Clarendon

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Idris, T. H. W.

Baker, JosephA.(Finsbury, E.)

Elibank, Master of

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Essex, R. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Beauchamp, E.

Evans, Samuel T.

Jenkins, J.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Everett, R. Lacey

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Beck, A. Cecil

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, SirD. Brynmor (Swansea)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bertram, Julius

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Black, Arthur W.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Kekewich, Sir George

Bowerman, C.W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kelley, George D.

Brace, William

Fullerton, Hugh

Laidlaw, Robert

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gill, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

Branch, James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lea, High Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Bright, J. A.

Glover, Thomas

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gooch, George Pea body

Lehmann, R. C.

Byles, William Pollard

Grant, Corrie

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lewis, John Herbert

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gurdon, Rt Hn. SirW. Brampton

Lough, Thomas

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lupton, Arnold

Chance, Frederick William

Hall, Frederick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clough, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harvey, W. E. Derbyshire, N. E.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm'gham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Maclean, Donald

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Macpherson, J. T.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

Hedges, A. Paget

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Cooper, G. J.

Helme, Norval Watson

M'Callum, John M.

Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

M'Crae, George

Cory, Clifford John

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Maddison, Frederick

Cox, Harold

Henry, Charles S.

Manfleld, Harry (Northants)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Crooks, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Crossley, William J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Marks, G. Croydon (Launeeston)

Davies Ellis William (Eifion)

Holt, Richard Durning

Marnham, F. J.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Massie, J.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Micklem, Nathaniel

go back to people who did what they knew was wrong, or what at any rate, if they did not know it was wrong, they were monstrously negligent in not knowing. If they had not broken the law what on earth was the object of the Bill? Of course they had broken the law, and they knew they were breaking the law, and he repeated that it was a monstrous thing to come like that to the House. A great many of them were wealthy persons who had been conducting this agitation for years, and it was just to whitewash these few wealthy persons, and for no other reason, that the Bill was brought forward. It was a dishonest Bill, and if it were really a Bill founded on principle and not upon the mere selfish expediency of a few interested persons, it would not go back to the past, but apply simply to the future.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 18. (Division List No. 427.)

Montgomery, H. G.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thornton, Percy M.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robinson, S.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Morrell, Philip

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ure, Alexander

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Rose, Charles Day

Walsh, Stephen

Nicholls, George

Rowlands, J.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Nuttall, Harry

Scott, A. H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

Ward le, George J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Waring, Walter

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Seddon, J.

Warner, ThomasC'ourtenay T.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Seely, Colonel

Waterlow, D. S.

Paulton, James Mellor

Shackleton, David James

Weir, James Galloway

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Sherwell, Arthur James

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Pollard, Dr.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Patrick (Meath, North).

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

Radford, G. H.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wiles, Thomas

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wills, Arthur Walters

Raphael, Herbert H.

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

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

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rendall, Athelstan

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rickett, J. Compton

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Summerbell, T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Robertson, Sir G. Seott(Bradf'rd

Taylor, TheodoreC.(Radcliffe)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, W. W.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel.

Balcarres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Valentia, Viscount

Bowles G. Stewart

Hard y, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hay, Hon. Claude George

TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Cave.

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

LORD EDMUND TALBOT LORD EDMUND TALBOT moved an Amendment to limit the effect of the Bill to such marriages as had already taken place, his object being to legalise those marriages which had taken place in the past already with the ecclesiastical sanction of their Church. The House was aware that the position of Catholics was somewhat peculiar on this question. They could contract these marriages lawfully according to the law of the Church, by obtaining a dispensation for the purpose, but the law of the land being what it was, the children of such marriages were illegitimate. He was so strongly opposed to the Bill's being made law that he could not take upon himself the responsibility of voting in favour of it, but he wanted to take this opportunity of legitimising the children of marriages of members of his faith which had been contracted according to the law of their Church, if not according to the law of the land.
MR. L. HARDYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 7, leave out "or hereafter."—(Lord Edmund Talbot.)
Question proposed—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
LORD K. CECILthought the Amendment was far less defensible than the oner they had just discussed. Its object was to cut future marriages out of the Bill. He had a little difficulty in following his noble friend. He was utterly opposed to every line of the Bill, however, and so any Motion to omit any words or any portion of the Bill would have his support. But if they were to have a measure legitimising a marriage with a deceased wife's sister, it seemed a little difficult to defend the proposition that it should not apply to future marriages. He spoke with the greatest possible confidence against the retrospective principle of the measure, but he disliked every portion of the Bill.
Amendment negatived.
LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out the words "or without." He said till last year the position with reference to these marriages with a deceased wife's sister was this: they were legal in many

1483
of the Colonies, but ceased to be legal when the parties came to England. That was a position of affairs which was very difficult to defend. So the Under-Secretary for the Colonies last year introduced and carried a provision which legitimised the children at any rate of those who had contracted marriages in the Colonies. He did not see now what reason the words "or without" had in the Bill at all. Hon. members had nothing to do with marriages which took place in foreign countries under foreign laws. They only dealt with our own marriages. That seemed to be covered by the words "within the Realm." He thought that it would be proper to strike out the words "within the Realm or without." He would like to know from the legal officers of the Government or from the hon. member for Walthamstow what was the exact force of the words "or without." He thought the words were taken from the old Act which was designed to meet Colonial marriages. He ventured to move that these words be omitted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words "or without.'"—(Lord Robert Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. SIMONsaid it was not likely that the legal members of the House would have a substantial difference of opinion about these words. They could not apply English law to legitimise marriages if the man was not domiciled in this country.
MR. F. E. SMITHthought that what the hon. Member said was right.
Amendment negatived.
LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out the words "or voidable." Ever since the 1835 Act, marriages between a man and his deceased wife's sister had been absolutely void, and marriages contracted between a man and his deceased wife's sister before 1835 were voidable. The only object of the words of which he complained would be to validate marriages contracted before 1835. He could, not conceive any reason why that should
1484
be done. He saw a considerable danger in validating marriages between people who were dead. He knew that the argument projected was that there might be children about, and that they should have the benefit of such legitimation as this Bill could give them. There could be no reason for making these marriages before 1835 legal, and he ventured to suggest that these words should be excluded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1 line 10, to leave out the words 'or voidable.'"—(Lord Robert Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. SIMONsaid that no harm was done by inserting these words in the Bill.
SIR W. ANSONsaid that in the circumstances it appeared to him that the words were useless, and words which appeared to be useless in an Act of Parliament, were apt to turn out worse than useless when the law come to be interpreted and applied.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that though he was in favour of the Bill he thought it was perfectly obvious that they ought not to continue to discuss it at that hour of the morning. Four o'clock in the afternoon, not four o'clock in the morning, was the time to see that the Bill was made as clear and as workable as possible. They ought not to put a single word in the Bill unless they were able to put a definite meaning to it. After hearing what the hon. Gentleman had said, he was satisfiod that there was not sufficient reason for inserting the words, while his experience in the law courts was that if they were inserted the ambiguity in them would lead to trouble in the law courts.
Amendment negatived.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY MR. LAURENCE HARDY moved an Amendment giving an opportunity to either party to such a form of marriage contracted before the passing of the Act to avoid the Act by a declaration in prescribed form that he or she did not desire such a form of marriage to be valid. He moved that Amendment in order to clear

1485
up the question which had been raised in other parts of the debate as to the position of the parties when the Act came into operation. Instances had been given of the different ways in which it was clear there might be cases where the two parties to that form of marriage might not desire that their marriages should be made valid. The Amendment he had moved gave an opportunity during the short interval before the Act came into operation for those persons to exercise their own judgment in the matter and to decide whether the union which was an illegal union should become a legal union under that Act. Unless they adopted the Amendment they would, as had already been pointed out, have people compulsorily married, though they might be unwilling now to carry out the arrangement which they made in their young life. He did not desire to labour the point in any way, but it was a point which had been previously made, and one for which it was clear something must be done to remedy the difficulty. There were other Amendments on the Paper which dealt with the same point in different words, and he was not particular about adhering to the words he had moved. He thought however, some words were necessary to deal with the question.
MR. RAWLINSONseconded the Amendment. He said he had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same point, which he would prefer so far as the wording was concerned, for it went further than the hon. Member's Amendment. The object was one which did not in any way touch the main details or objects of the Bill. Directly the Bill passed into law, everybody who previous to the passing of the Bill had gone through the form of marriage with his deceased wife's sister would be bound to her for life. That Amendment said that where the two people did not wish to be married, they should within six months of the passing of the Bill make a statement to that effect in writing, and then the marriage would not be valid. If they did not accept the Amendment the Bill would lead to serious consequences. Assuming a man had married his deceased wife's sister, but after living happily for a time disputes had arisen and they had agreed to separate—perhaps one of them had committed adultery—yet when that
1486
Bill passed into law and forced those two people to be man and wife there would be no remedy in such a case for either party. The adultery would have been committed before they were man and wife, and therefore there would be no remedy. The effect of that Amendment would be to give those people the option of not taking advantage of the Bill. He did not propose at that time of night to deal with the broad general principles of the matter, but in every single state in the world two people had to agree to marry. The Bill in its present form would for the first time make people marry who might not wish to marry at all, and who were not married at the present time. The Amendment was only carrying out the intention of the promoters of the Bill, who he was sure did not wish that people who did not desire to be legally married should be forced to be.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, after 'affinity,' to insert 'unless either party to such a form of marriage contracted before the passing of this Act shall within six months of the passing of this Act declare in writing in a prescribed form that he or she do not desire such a form of marriage to be valid."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid the Amendment amounted really to divorce by consent of one party only. He could imagine a case where a man had gone through the form of marriage, and if that Amendment were carried he would be able to sneak out of his engagement and desert his wife. Under the Bill as it at present stood they did not make people marry, but where people had gone through the form of marriage in the past that form of marriage would be made legal. They could not possibly accept the Amendment.
MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.)said that he personally desired to see the Bill go through to remedy a long-felt want in the life of the nation, but the point under discussion had been raised earlier in the evening by the hon. Baronet representing the City of London, who gave a specific instance which the Amendment was designed

1487
to meet. How would the right hon. Gentleman deal with a case like that of a man and woman who had gone through the form of marriage, who had lived for some time happily together, but who had disagreed and decided to separate I They were not married now in the eyes of the law, but if the Bill without the amending clause went through they were remarried at once. The right hon. Gentleman said that what the proposal amounted to was divorce by one party only, but in the example he had quoted the man and woman had both agreed to separate, to consider their union as a temporary union, and to take advantage of the fact that the Bill was not passed. If the Bill passed in its present form they would join those two people together again. He thought that the Amendment was a very sensible one, and one which ought to be accepted.
LORD R. CECILhoped the promoters would accept the Amendment, for real cases of hardship had been pointed out. It was quite true that whatever device they adopted, the moment they adopted the principle of retrospective legislation they were thrown into difficulties. It was quite true also that there might be a hardship caused if they said there was to be an option on the part of the parties as to whether they would come under the Bill or not. He did not think the hardships would be many, for they would only be in cases where one of the parties wanted to get rid of the tie but the other did not. There would be far more hardships if no provision such as that in the Amendment was made. He would not refer at length to it again, but earlier in the evening he had mentioned the case of a man who went through the form of marriage with three sisters. He had had no reply in regard to the question he then put, and the question had not been answered because there was no answer He quite agreed such a case would not be a common one, and that hon. Members might say it was not worth their while to consider it; but there were a large number of cases in which a man might go through the form of marriage with his deceased wife's sister, separate from her and form a connection of a perfectly irregular character with another woman. It was perfectly true that that other woman would have acted in a way which could not be approved, and had committed a grave fault, but so in his opinion had all
1488
the people who were dealt with in the Bill. The man and woman who knew that their union was not legal, but yet made that union, were committing a very wrong act indeed. In the case of the man who had gone through the form of marriage with his deceased wife's sister, however, whether the reason was good or bad, and had then formed a connection with another woman, the other woman was always hopeful that he would marry her. The Bill in its present form, however, would come along and place it out of the power of the man to do justice to her. No legislation would be effective so long as they adopted the retrospective principle. He contended that the dangers that would accrue from giving some form of option to the parties as to whether they should come under the provisions of the Bill was the lesser danger of the two. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about divorce by consent. He could not understand the position the right hon. Gentleman had taken up. Those in favour of the Bill conceived a union with a deceased wife's sister to be a complete marriage, except for a technical legal formality. He could not conceive how any hon. Gentleman could hold such an opinion. Those unions-were illegal; the parties made them with their eyes open, they knew the consequences to their children, and they chose deliberately to risk those consequences. To say that those unions were really marriages except for a technical formality struck at the whole principle of morality. He was surprised at anyone holding that view.
Mr. ASHLEYsaid he could not understand why any hon. Member should oppose the passing of the Amendment, whether he was in favour of the Bill or not. After the exceedingly clear statement of the hon. Member for St. Pancras they could see there might be cases of very great hardship. The Secretary of State for War earlier in the evening had said that the Bill was a purely permissive Bill, and that no one wished to make a man marry his deceased wife's sister. But the Bill might make him do so whether he wanted to or not. The case which had been quoted was a very apt illustration of what might happen. A man might marry his deceased wife's sister, they might fall out and live apart, but the House came along and said they should be married directly that Bill

1489
received the Royal Assent. All that they asked was that those people if they wished should be exempt from the Bill. That seemed only common justice to people who had never been legally married.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYrecognised that there might be a certain amount of weight in the arguments put forward by his right hon. friend in charge of the Bill that they were giving to one party to some sort of a contract power to break it. He thought, however, a compromise on the question might be arrived at. If the words were "unless both parties," instead of "unless either party, "they would exclude the worst cases. That would moan that if both man and woman subsequently repented, their cases would be removed from the operations of the Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to accept that? He would move that as an Amendment to the Amendment before the House.
SIR WILLIAM BULLseconded.

AYES.

Ashley, W. W.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Balcarres, Lord

Cory, Clifford John

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Craik, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Forster, Henry William

Valentia, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Rawlinson.

Cave, George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Gooch, George Pea body

Aitisworth, John Stirling

Cooper, G. J.

Girant, Corrie

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Cox, Harold

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Beauehamp, E.

Crooks, William

Hall, Frederick

Beck, A. Cecil

Crossley, William J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Bertram, Julius

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dobson, Thomas W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Black, Arthur W.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hedges, A. Paget

Brace, William

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Helme, Norval Watson

Bramsdon, T. A.

Elibank, Master of

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Branch, James

Essex, R. W.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen. W.

Bright, J. A.

Evans, Samuel T.

Henry, Charles S.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Everett, R. Lacey

Higham, John Sharp

Byles, William Pollard

Fenwick, Charles

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Holt, Richard Durning

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Horniman, Emslie John

Chance, Frederick William

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fuller, John Michael F.

Hudson, Walter

Clough, William

Fullerton, Hugh

Hyde, Clarendon

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gill, A. H.

Idris, T. H. W.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Glover, Thomas

Jardine, Sir J.

MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he would accept the Amendment.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he could not accept the Amendment because of the cruelty to the children.
MR. LEAsuggested that the difficulty might be got over by inserting the words "where there are no children."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'either party' and insert the words 'both parties.'"—(Viscount Helmsley.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Question put. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes, 20; Noes, 179. (Division List No. 428.)

Jenkins, J.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'st'r)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

Nuttall, Harry

Stanger, H. Y.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Kekewich, Sir George

Paulton, James Mellor

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Kelley, George D.

Pearce, Robert (Staff's. Leek)

Summerbell, T.

Laidlaw, Robert

Pollard, Dr.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lamont, Norman

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Taylor, Theo Jore C. (Radcliffe)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Radford, G. H.

Thornton, Percy M.

Lehmann, R. C.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ure, Alexander

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Walsh, Stephen

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lough, Thomas

Rendall, Athelstan

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lupton, Arnold

Richards, T. F. (Wolv'rh'mpt'n

Ward, W. Dudley (Sonth'mpt'n

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richards, Thomas(Monm'th W.)

Wardle, George J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Rickett, J. Compton

Waring, Walter

Maclean, Donald

Ridsdale, E. A.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Waterlow, D. S.

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'rd)

Weir, James Galloway

M'Crae, George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Maddison, Frederick

Robinson, S.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wiles, Thomas

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Massie, J.

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seddon, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Montgomery, H. G.

Seely, Colonel

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shackleton, David James

Morrell, Philip

Sherwell, Arthur James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Nicholls, George

Simon, John Allsebrook

Pease.

LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved an Amendment to provide that no clergyman in Holy Orders of the Church of Ireland should be compelled to solemnise the marriage of any man with his deceased wife's sister. He said he moved this Amendment for the purpose of asking a question of the promoters. He did not know what the position was in the Disestablished Church of Ireland—whether there was any obligation upon a minister of the Church of Ireland to marry anybody. Of course in England there was an obligation on the part of a clergyman to marry people, but he was not sure what the state of the law was in Ireland. If, as he thought might well be the case, there was no obligation, then the Amendment would be unnecessary.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, after the word 'England' to insert the words 'or of the Church of Ireland.'"—(Lord B. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HALDANEsaid there could not be any obligation upon clergymen of the
1492
Church of Ireland simply because it was disestablished.
LORD K. CECIL LORD K. CECIL said he thought that was so, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved an Amendment to provide that no clergyman of the Church of England should be compelled to allow any church or place of worship to be used for the purpose of solemnising the marriage of any man with his deceased wife's sister. They heard a great deal, he said, of conflict between civil and canon law, and it seemed only right that there should be no obligation on the part of the clergyman to allow his church to be used for the purpose of solemnising a marriage which, according to his views, was contrary to the law of the Church. It did not really affect the substance of the Bill in any way, the Bill being very careful indeed in its wording, so as not in any way to affect the religious views of the parties, if he might say so, because in Clause 1 it said that no such marriage should be

1493
deemed void or voidable as a civil contract by reason only of such affinity. The words used were "civil contract," and thus merely dealt with the fact as to whether a clergyman was bound to use his place of worship for a particular purpose.
MR. EVELYN CECILseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 13, after the word 'sister,' to insert the words 'or to allow any church or place of worship to be used for such purpose, '"—(Mr. Raulinson).
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as a clergyman could not be forced to allow his church to be used for such purpose unless words were put in to that effect. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had an Amendment which proposed to compel this, but he had kindly consented not to press it.
MR. ASHLEYasked whether the right hon. Baronet was quite certain that under the present law a clergyman was not compelled to lend his church for marriage services. No doubt he could not be compelled to celebrate a marriage himself, but surely under the present law he was compelled to lend his church for that purpose.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid with regard to the statement of the right hon. Baronet that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire did not intend to move his Amendment, he might say that he was not content to resign what appeared to him to be a valuable Amendment so lightly, and he would call the attention of the House to the terms of the Amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: We must dispose of this one first.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he believed the right hon. Baronet had made a mistake in his statement of law, because last year he joined issue with the English Church Union and had five days in Court with them on a religious ease, and from his small knowledge of ecclesiastical law it was quite clear to him that the parishioners had a right to the church, and that
1494
although the clergyman himself was not bound to officiate at a marriage, the parishioners had a right to the church. Perhaps the Secretary of State for War would give the House his opinion on the point.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he would like to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he was quite satisfied as to his statement of the law, and whether a parishioner could not claim to marry in his church despite the clergyman, and whether, under these circumstances, the clergyman might not be compelled to lend the use of the church although not compelled to perform the service himself.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: Surely a person cannot use the church without the permission of the vicar?
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid that as this was a minor point, and as they were all anxious to get this Bill as soon as they could, he thought the right hon. Baronet might accept this Amendment.
MR. HALDANEthought the simplest course of all would be to take the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, which did not prejudice anything, but which only said that when any minister of the Church of England refused to perform such marriage, he should permit any other clergyman of the Church of England, entitled to officiate, to perforn such service.
MR. RAWLINSONasked the promoters of the Bill to accept his Amendment, because on the right hon. Baronet's own showing it was not necessary, and therefore could do no harm. If they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, it would be flying in the face of what a few minutes ago was the view of the promoters.
MR. BOWLESsaid he only wanted to understand exactly where they were. Did he understand that the right hon. Baronet's desire was that a clergyman who had any scruples about this matter should be compelled to allow his church to be used for these marriages? He could not quite understand, because the right hon. Baronet agreed only a few minutes ago that he did not desire that the clergyman should be so compelled.
LORD R. CECILsaid it was exceedingly doubtful whether this Amendment was necessary, but the statement of the Secretary of State for War that he was going to advise the promoters that they should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire raised a very serious question. The great evil of the whole of this Bill was the injury that it would inflict upon the consciences of those who disapproved these marriages. The promoters of the Bill he acknowledged had so far shown a desire to minimise that evil as much as possible, and they had shown, and rightly shown, a great desire to avoid anything in the nature of public scandal. That was absolutely of the first importance in a measure of this kind. Let them conceive what the proposal of this Amendment amounted to. Two parishioners, who, it might be, did not ordinarily go to church, desired to be married under this Bill, and the clergyman of the church in which they desired to be married had very strong objections to marriages of this description—objections in which he was supported, as might usually happen, by the great mass of his congregation. The promoters of the Bill were going to say that because these two persons were technically parishioners and might have merely taken a room for three weeks in the parish, in order to have their banns put up or licence granted, and were not parishioners in any true sense of the word, they could go to the clergyman and insist on having the marriage service performed in his church if they got a clergyman who had no conscientious scruples to perform it. One knew the kind of row that would ensue. The clergyman who was supported by his conscience would lock the door, there would be a tremendous row, and litigation through all the Courts as to whether he had the right to lock the door or not. Surely that was a most unreasonable provision to put in a Bill of this kind, and it was not what hon. Members desired. He believed that no one would wish to encourage scandals and disputes of that kind if they could be avoided. It might be that the Amendment was desirable, he thought it would be safer to put it in; but he was quite confident that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire was not desirable, and it would be in the highest possible degree injurious.
1496
He would have thought after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not propose to accept it, and after the statement of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire that he did not propose to press it
MR. J. D. WHITE: May I say that I made no such statement? The suggestion was made that if this Amendment were withdrawn I should withdraw my second Amendment which is to the con trary effect, but that compromise was not accepted.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was only quoting what the right hon. Gentleman told the House a few minutes ago, but he must leave that to the hon. Member to determine. Whether or not the hon. Member made any statement, he (Lord R. Cecil) appealed to the House not to add to the many grievances which people felt against this Bill by accepting such an Amendment as that.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he had waited in order to give the hon. Members who were in charge of the Bill and the legal officers of the Government an opportunity to reply to the speech of his noble friend. As it had not been answered he felt justified in pressing for an answer from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, or from the Secretary for War, because he thought this most important Amendment should be accepted. He understood just now from the right hon. Baronet that the words carried out his intention, but that their insertion was unnecessary because it was already the state of the law. What had occurred in the last few minutes to change the minds of the promoters of the Bill? The Secretary for War, who probably had seen the Amendment, and had considered it in its present form for the first time that night, had said he thought the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire ought to be accepted: but why should that expression of opinion alter the whole intentions of the promoters already expressed in the House? It was treating Members of the Opposition in a way they could hardly accept if the promoters of the Bill suddenly changed their minds and did not accept the Amendment moved by his learned friend below him.
MR. SIMONsaid the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire was a clause now fifty years old on the Statute Book. It was passed amid a similar state of circumstances, when the marriage of divorced persons became possible, and a similar doubt was then made. Section 58 of the Act, which enabled divorced persons to re-marry, and which was passed in 1857, was in every word and line of it exactly the same as the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Ashley, W. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Valentia, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hardy Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Sir William Bull.

Carlile, E. Hildred

MaeVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Cave, George

Rawlinson, John Fredeciek Peel.

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Everett, R. Lacey

Kekewich, Sir George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fenwick, Charles

Kelley, George D.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Ferens, T. R.

Laidlaw, Robert

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lamont, Norman

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.)

Beauchamp, E.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Beck, A. Cecil

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lehmann, R. C.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)

Bertram, Julius

Gill, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lough, Thomas

Blaek, Arthur W.

Glover, Thomas

Lupton, Arnold

Bowerman, C. W.

Gooch, George Peabody

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brace, William

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maclean, Donald

Branch, James

Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

Macpherson, J. T.

Bright, J. A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Callum, John M.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hall, Fiederick

M'Crae, George

Byles, William Pollard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Maddison, Frederick

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Haworth, Arthur A.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Chance, Frederick William

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Cough, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Marnham, F J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Helme, Norval Watson

Massie, J.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingham

Henders Hn. Arthur (Durham)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henry, Charles S.

Montgomery, H. G.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Higham, John Sharp

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cooper, G. J.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Newnes, F. (Notts., Basset)

Cory, Clifford John

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholls, George

Cox, Harold

Horniman, Emslie John

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Crooks, William

Hudson, Walter

Nuttall, Harry

Crossley, William J.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, Ellis William(Eifion)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Paulton, James Mellor

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jenkins, J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pollard, Dr.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jones, SirD. Brynmor(Swansea)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Elibank, Master of

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Radford, G. H.

Essex, R. W.

J ones, William (Carnarvonshire

Raphael, Herbert H.

Evans, Samuel T.

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Dumbartonshire. The hon. Gentleman would therefore see that if in the language of that Amendment they were persons who were entitled to be married in the parish church, they should not be deprived of that right merely because the incumbent of the parish church would not marry them.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 17; Noes, 177. (Division List No. 429.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Shipman Dr. John G.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wardle, George J.

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Waring, Walter

Rickett, J. Compton

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stanger, H. Y.

Waterlow, D. S.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W)

Weir, James Galloway

Robertson J. M. (Tyneside)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Robinson, S.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wiles, Thomas

Rowlands, J.

Summerbell, T.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Taylor'Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Seddon, J.

Ure, Alexander

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Seely, Colonel

Walsh, Stephen

Shackleton, David James

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Sherwell, Arthur James

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

MR. J. D. WHITE*MR. J. D. WHITE moved to insert the words "solemnising or" after the word "for." The object of this Amendment was to secure to the clergyman liberty of conscience in both directions. The clause as it stood saved the clergyman from civil and ecclesiastical penalties for refusing to solemnise such marriages, but left him liable for solemnising them, so that the ecclesiastical authorities could bring pressure to bear to prevent such solemnising. The Amendment was designed to secure full liberty to the clergyman by exempting him from all penalties whichever course he thought right to adopt.
MR. F. E. SMITHseconded. This Amendment met exactly the position which was stated and repudiated by his noble friend behind him. He thought it must be acceptable to him because it protected the clergyman, which he understood his noble friend desired, and this was given him not by the canon law but by the civil law. Therefore it got rid of the complaint that by the civil law the mar riage was legal, and yet not by the canon law.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, after the word 'for' to insert the words 'solemnising or.'"—(Mr. J. D. White.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
LORD R. CECILsaid he thoroughly disapproved of this Amendment, which appeared to him to be absolutely illegal and unjustifiable. They proposed to relieve the clergyman from the penalties for breaking the law which he
1500
was under a solemn duty to observe He confessed it appeared to him to be not only illogical, but a great scandal as well. The progress of the Bill made it clear to him that in spite of the protests of hon. Members, this was one of the insidious attacks which were being made on the Church of England. Hon Members were not content that these marriages should be legalised. They were attempting to force the Church of England against its conscience to solemnise marriages to which the Church could not consent. It was quite plain that the object of the Amendment was to encourage a breach of the law, and it seemed to him an absolutely indefensible interference of the House with the Church of England.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that the noble Lord and those who acted with him represented a very small minority of the Church of England. He was as good a Churchman as the noble Lord, and when the hon. Member for Marylebone talked about a dishonest opposition, he forgot that the clergy had taken an oath to carry out the law as enacted by Parliament.
LORD R. CECIL: I have never incited any clergyman to break the law.
MR. MARKHAM: If the noble Lord says he is not a member of the English Church Union—
LORD R. CECIL: Of course I am not a member of the English Church Union.
MR. MARKHAM: said he was certainly under the impression that he was.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. J. D. WHITE*MR. J. D. WHITE moved to insert "Provided also that when any minister

1501
of any church or chapel of the Church of England shall refuse to perform such marriage service between any person who, but for such refusal, would be entitled to have the same service performed in such church or chapel, such minister shall permit any other clergyman in holy orders of the Church of England, entitled to officiate within the diocese in which such church or chapel is situate, to perform such marriage service in such church or chapel." He said that this Amendment, like his previous one, was taken from a similar provision in the Matrimonial Clauses Act of 1857, in relation to the re-marriage of divorced persons. He mentioned this because he considered that the House ought to allow as great liberty of conscience now as it did fifty years ago.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 15, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words, 'Provided also that when any minister of any church or chapel of the Church of England shall refuse to perform such marriage service between any persons who, but for such refusal, would be entitled to have the same service performed in such church or chapel, such minister shall permit any other clergyman in holy orders in the Church of England, entitled to officiate within the diocese in which such church or chapel is situate, to perform such marriage service in such church or chapel."—(Mr. J.D. White.)
Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
LORD R. CECILsaid this was an Amendment he most thoroughly objected to. It was quite true that churches did not belong to the incumbent, but it was equally true that incumbents had a right to exclude undesirable persons from the building. The incumbent could not exclude parishioners from the service, and by this Amendment they were going to make another exception to the general right of the incumbent. He believed that this particular clause had never acted in a beneficial way under any circumstances. People who had a right feeling never desired to thrust themselves into a church where their presence would be offensive; but worthless persons occasionally did so and they got the most worthies" clergymen they could to assist them. They got a man such as no Member of that House would approve, and they induced him to take the service. This question had been productive already
1502
of a large amount of litigation, and had aroused a great amount of feeling. If they were going to add to that a proposal to compel a clergyman to perform a service which he would regard as profoundly wrong, he was quite confident they would introduce a very serious scandal. He thought the House was entitled to some explanation. The insertion of this clause would not do good to a single soul. No one who was entitled to the sympathy of the House would ever make use of it. He was convinced that the only object of it would be to add to the burden of men who were far more saintly than anyone in that House.
MR MARKHAMsaid that if the noble Lord would prevent people who had committed adultery from going to churches, he would certainly support him, but he considered it a scandal that this was permitted, and that a man who had committed adultery could be married in a church.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was one scandal in the Church which in his opinion ought to be remedied, and that therefore that was a reason for carrying this Amendment which was likely to draw other scandals. The argument seemed weak in its logic, and he thought it was better to put aside altogether the question of the marriage of divorced persons which did not really arise, and to consider whether this Amendment was advisable in itself. He thought hon. Members might pay rather more regard to the consciences of members of the Church of England. They were very particular about calling attention to Nonconformist consciences when they thought any measure was going to interfere with their free exercise, and he thought they ought to allow members of the Church of England the same right that they claimed for themselves. The question seemed to be whether or not they were going to infringe the consciences of the clergymen by compelling them to allow these services to take place in the churches in which they officiated, although they considered any such service was contrary to the law of the Church. If the persons wanted to be married in the church, which he personally could not understand as they were directly going against the law of the Church, surely it was not a very great hardship that they should not only find the clergyman who

1503
was willing to marry them, but also a clergyman who was willing to marry them in his church. If they could find the clergyman they could also find the church, and by so doing injustice and hardship on the conscience of those who did object would be avoided. They had a right to have their views respected in this matter. There was another rather important aspect of this question, and that was why the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind. He had stated distinctly a short time ago that he did not intend this proviso to be inserted in the Bill. It was now to be inserted

AYES.

Acland Francis Dyke

Gooch, George Peabody

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Grant, Corrie

Markham, Arthur Basil

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Marnham, F. J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Massie, J.

Beauchamp, E.

Hall, Frederick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Beck, A. Cecil

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Montgomery, H. G.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

Morrell, Philip

Black, Arthur W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholls, George

Brace, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doneast'r

Bramsdon, T. A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Branch, James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nuttall, Harry

Bright, J. A.

Henry, Charles S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Byles, William Pollard

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Horniman, Emslie John

Pollard, Dr.

Chance, Frederick William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Cough, William

Hudson, Walter

Radford, G. H.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hyde, Clarendon

Raphael, Herbert H.

Collings Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingham

Idris, T. H. W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rendall, Athelstan

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Richards, Thomas W. Monm'th

Cooper, G. J.

Jenkins, J.

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

Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Gr'nst'd

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rickett, J. Compton

Cry, Clifford John

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cox, Harold

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, SirG.Scott (Br'dford

Crossley, William J.

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kekewich, Sir George

Robinson, S.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kelley, George D.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Dodson, Thomas W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rowlands, J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lament, Norman

Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Elibank, Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Seddon, J.

Essex, R. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich

Seely, Colonel

Evans, Samuel T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Everett, R. Lacey

Lough, Thomas

Sherwell, Arthur James

Fenwick, Charles

Lupton, Arnold

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Maclean, Donald

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Macpherson, J. T.

Stanger, N. Y.

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Callum, John M.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Crae, George

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Gill A. H.

Maddison, Frederick

Straus B. S. (Mile End)

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

very hurriedly, and without due consideration certainly by the Government who were responsible for the Bill. Therefore he asked leave to move the adjournment of the debate so that due consideration might be given to this question.
Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned, "—(Viscount Helmsey,)—put and negatived.
Original Question put:—
The House divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 17. (Division List No. 430.)

Summerbell, T.

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Waring, Walter

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thornton, Percy M.

Waterlow, D. S.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Ure, Alexander

Weir, James Galloway

Walsh, Stephen

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Wiles, Thomas

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Wills, Arthur Walters

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Valentia, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

White, Patrick (Meath North)

Bull, Sir William James

Helmsley, Viscount

Cave, George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Carlile and Mr. Bridgeman.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)

MR. HALDANEclaimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the words of the Bill to the end of Clause 1 stand part of the Bill,' be now put.
Question put, "That the Question,

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fenwick, Charles

Kelley, George D.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ferens, T. R.

Laidlaw, Robert

Allen, A. Acland (Christohurch)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lamont, Norman

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Beauchamp, E.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lehmann, R. C.

Beck, A. Cecil

Gill, A. H.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Glover, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Black, Arthur W.

Gooch, George Peabody

Lough, Thomas

Bowerman, C. W.

Grant, Corrie

Lupton, Arnold

Brace, William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampt'n

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Branch, James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Maclean, Donald

Bright, J. A.

Hall, Frederick

Macpherson, J. T.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Callum, John M.

Byles, William Pollard

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

M'Crae, George

Carr-Comm, H. W.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Maddison, Frederick

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ha worth, Arthur A.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Chance, Frederick William

Hedges, E. Paget

Markham, Arthur Basil

Clough, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston).

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Marnham, F. J.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

Henry, Charles S.

Massie, J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Higham, John Sharp

Micklem, Nathaniel

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Montgomery, H. G.

Cooper, G. J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

Holt, Richard Durning

Morrell, Philip

Cory, Clifford John

Horniman, Emslie John

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Cox, Harold

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nicholls, George

Crooks, William

Hudson, Walter

Nicholson, Charles N.(D'ne'st'r)

Crossley, William. J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Id'ris, T. H. W.

Nuttall, Harry.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol. S.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Jenkins, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Paulton, James Mellor

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Elibank, Master of

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr.

Essex, R. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Evans, Samuel T.

Jowett, F. W.

Radford, G. H.

Everett, R. Lacey

Kekewich, Sir George

Raphael, Herbert H.

'That the words of the Bill to the end of of Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, 'be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes 172; Noes 19. (Division List No. 431.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wardle, George J.

Rendall, Athelstan

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Waring, Walter

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Waterlow, D. S.

Rickett, J. Compton

Stanger, H. Y.

Weir, James Galloway

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wiles, Thomas

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Robinson, S.

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Rowlands, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ure, Alexander

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Walsh, Stephen

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Seddon, J.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J.

Seely, Colonel

Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

A. Pease.

Shackleton, David James

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampt'n)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ashley, W. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Bull, Sir William James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Carlile, E. Hildred

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Mr. Bridgcman and Viscount Helmsley.

Cave, George

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Question, "That the words of the Bill to the end of Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.
MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE moved an Amendment that nothing in this Act should render lawful any marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister if he had been divorced from his wife by reason, wholly or partly, of his having committed adultery with such sister. He said this form of misconduct was happily very rare. But he did not think it would be contended that where this offence had been committed Parliament should provide that the marriage of persons who had been guilty of so gross an offence should be rendered valid by the Bill.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, at the end, to insert the words," Provided that nothing in this Act shall render lawful any marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister if he has been divorced from his wife by reason, wholly or partly, of his having committed adultery with such sister.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. HALDANEsaid that no one could feel anything but sympathy with the motives of the Amendment. The offence was a very rare one, but one must
1508
adhere to principle in this matter. It was laid down in the Divorce Act of 1857. It was there enacted that where ever there was a divorce that the marriage of divorced parties should be possible. That was the law of the land, whether it was this case or not. Fortunately such cases as were contemplated in the Amendment were very rare, and it was only on the ground that this law had existed for half a century that he said on behalf of the Government that he thought they would be wrong to accept the Amendment.
MR. RAWLINSONasked the House to consider the principle of the Amendment. He for one did not agree with the policy of the law in the Act of 1857. But this was not the time or place to discuss that, but surely in this particular instance they were altering the law of the land by this Bill. When they were altering the law of the land and making possible a marriage between intimate connections as they were in this particular case, between a man and the sister of his wife, there would be no great departure from the law of the land in saying that if he had committed adultery with this particular woman—which was very often the cause of the marriage between the man and his wife coming to an end—he should not be allowed to marry the woman. From the point of view of expediency, let

1509
them think of the temptation in the fact of the possibility of the husband marrying afterwards.
MR. SIMONsaid his hon. and learned friend was evidently under the impression that this proviso would make it possible for a man who had been divorced to marry a sister of his wife who divorced him while his wife was alive. He quite appreciated the reference to the Matrimonial Clauses Act of 1857. There was another Amendment later on, and when they came to it he hoped that steps would be taken to prevent its being put in the Bill, and so provide that it would be impossible for a man to treat his divorced wife as though she were dead, when she was alive. But this Amendment did not deal with that; it was an attempt to deal with an act which was abominable to the last degree on the part of a man who was not only divorced, but had committed adultery with his wife's sister. But they were not seeking to change the laws of divorce; the law was that a guilty as well as an innocent party could marry again. This Bill said that to marry a deceased wife's sister was legal, and if they were going to have a rule they ought not to make any exception, and therefore the principle which had existed for fifty years for good or evil ought not to be broken.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not attach very much importance to the Amendment, because it was designed to make the Bill more reputable than it was before. It dealt with a very rare thing. A man was divorced, having committed adultery with his wife's sister, and he married her.
MR. CAVEsaid in view of the statements made on behalf of the Government he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE moved in line 24, after the word "contingent" insert the words" or presumptive." He explained that in the ease of a man who had married a deceased wife's sister and had issue by her, and after her death had married another woman and had a child by her that child was the presumptive successor to his property. Unless these words were inserted, they would in that case deprive the child of his inheritance.
LORD R. CECILseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 24, after the word 'contingent,' to insert the words 'or presumptive.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. HALDANEsaid that the case presumed an expectation. There was a presumption, for instance, that the right hon. Gentleman would some day sit on the other side of the House, but this was only a presumption. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that if they went beyond what was laid down, it would be acting only on presumptive evidence.
MR. CAVEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. JOSEPH PEASE MR. JOSEPH PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden) moved in Clause 2, to leave out the words "such duties" and insert the words "any duties leviable on or with reference to death." He moved the Amendment in order to bring the Bill into conformity with the Act passed last year.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CARLILE MR. CARLILE moved to add at the end of Clause 2 "Nothing in this Act shall affect the devolution or distribution of the real or personal estate of any intestate not being a party to the marriage, who at the time of the passing of this Act shall be and shall until his death continue to be a lunatic, so found by inquisition." He said at that early hour of the morning he would not worry the Committee with details.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 8, at the end, to add the words, 'Nothing in this Act shall affect the devolution or distribution of the real or personal estate of any intestate who at the time of the passing of this Act shall be and shall until his death continue to be a lunatic, so found by inquisition.'"—(Mr. Carlile.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved an addition at end of Clause 3 "and adultery with the

1511
wife's sister shall continue to be regarded as incestuous adultery within the meaning of Section 27 of that Act."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 12, after '1857,' to insert the words 'and adultery with a wife's sister shall continue to be regarded as" incestuous adultery "within the meaning of Section 27 of that Act.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted in the Bill."
MR. HALDANE MR. HALDANE said that this really was quite superfluous. Clause 3 said "nothing in this Act shall remove the wife's sister from the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. EVELYN CECIL MR. EVELYN CECIL moved the addition at the end of Clause 3 of the subsection "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Divorce Act 1857, it shall not be lawful for a man to marry the sister of his divorced wife during the lifetime of such wife."
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONaccepted the Amendmont.
Amendment, by leave, agreed to.
MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to add at the end of line 2, "or his wife by whom he has been divorced."
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. LAURENCE HARDYthought that at that hour of the morning to be asked to pass a controversial Bill like that was going beyond anything which the Government "had so far inflicted upon them. They had again the fact that the Law Officers of the Crown were absent, although it was a strictly technical Bill. They had the fact that the promoters of the Bill had refused every suggestion from the Opposition side. In the material part of the Bill and after the promoter of the Bill had said he had arranged that an Amendment which was prejudicial to the Bill should not be accepted, that Amendment had been accepted. Now the promoters wished to read the Bill a third time. He made a respectful protest against that.
1512
He did not think he would advise his friends to divide, however, because he thought they might now very well allow the unfortunate people who had been kept there, the officials of the House and others, to go away. At any rate, no one could say that the debate had been carried on with any obstruction. There had been no long discussion on any Amendment. When the closure was asked for, it was refused by the Chair until the last occasion. Each Motion for adjournment was due to the fact that there was an absence of Law Officers or because the promoters of the Bill had changed their minds without giving an explanation. In these circumstances he thought they were perfectly justified in making a protest against the Third Reading, though he did not think they would be justified at that hour of the morning in prolonging the debate.
LORD R. CECILsaid he believed the Bill to be a thoroughly bad Bill, and it appeared to have been carried by a majority who were for the most part quite indifferent to the protests that were made against it, and who displayed an animus against the Church of England which was thinly veiled by the protests which the House was accustomed to hear when any such attack was delivered. The Bill would not make for the morality or peace of the country. He believed it to be a bad Bill, and to have been carried by methods and manœuvres not creditable to the House. Holding these opinions he would not be discharging his duty if he did not express them to the House as he did now, though he agreed there was no purpose in putting the House to the trouble of a further division. The opponents of the Bill were in a very small minority, and they had registered such a protest as they had been able to make. All that they were concerned, in now was to say publicly to the House that the responsibility for the Bill was on the shoulders of the majority.
Bill read the third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn."—Mr. Whiteley.— put, and agreed to.
Adjourned at four minutes after Six o'clock a. m.