Commons Sitting of 26 August 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
Weekly Rest-day Bill. Petition from Willesden and other places, in favour to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAYS IN BRITISH PROTECTORATES, LEASED TERRITORIES, AND COLONIES (OTHER THAN THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY).
Return [presented 23rd August] to be printed. [No. 336.]
HORSE-BREEDING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented, of Eleventh Report of the Royal Commission on Horse-Breeding, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1906.
Copy presented, of Treasury Warrant, dated 21st August, 1907, modifying for

113
the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the warrant made under Section 1 of the Superanunation Act, 1887, relative to the award of Compensation for Injury [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SUGAR CONVENTION.
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 19th August; Sir Gilbert Parker]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 337.]
STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
Copy presented, of Report on Strikes and Lock-outs of 1906, and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (CHANGES IN WAGES ETC).
Copy presented, of Report on changes in Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour in the United Kingdom in 1906, with comparative Statistics for 1897–1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS.
Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, during the session of 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th May; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 838.]
GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th May; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 339.]
CONCILIATION ACT, 1896 (TRADE DISPUTES).
Copy presented, of Sixth Report by the Board of Trade of proceedings under the Conciliation Act, 1896 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 340.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3907 and 3908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary for Scotland of the Departmental Committee on House-Letting in Scotland. Volume I. Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (SCOTLAND) (COMMUNICANTS).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th December, 1906; Mr. McCallum]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 341.]
ECCLESIASTICAL EXPENDITURE (SCOTLAND).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th December 1906; Mr. McCallum]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed [No. 342.]
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (SCOTLAND) (ELECTION OF MINISTERS).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th March; Mr. McCallum]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 343.]
DEER FORESTS (SCOTLAND).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th March; Mr. Molteno]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 344.]
TREATMENT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st May; Mr. Gulland]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 345.]
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st August; Mr. Sinclair]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 346.]
CANALS AND WATERWAYS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented, of Second Report of the Royal Commission appointed to-inquire into and report on the Canals and Inland Navigations of the United Kingdom, Vol. I. Report; Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices (Ireland); Vol. III. Minutes of Evidence and Appendices (England and Scotland); Vol. IV. Returns [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
Copies presented, of Orders made by the Metropolitan Borough of Hackney, the Borough of Widnes, and Barking Town Urban District Council, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented, of Regulations for the training of Teachers of Domestic Subjects, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return presented, [relative thereto ordered 19th August; Mr Mac Veagh]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 347.]
LOANS CONTRACTED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
Return ordered, "showing the following particulars with respect to the areas of Municipal Corporations, District Councils, Joint Boards, or Joint Committees, or other Local Authorities in England or "Wales which have contracted Loans on the security of any rate or rates, that is to say, (a) area of District; (b) population according to the last Census; (c) rateable and assessable value according to the last valuation list; (d) rates made in the District during the last preceding financial year; (e) the sum of the balances of outstanding Loans contracted by the Local Authority; and (f) the amount of the outstanding Loans to which the limitation of Section 234 of the Public Health Act, 1875, applies."—(Mr. H. W. Forster.)
PUBLIC BILLS (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
Return ordered, "showing, with reference to each of the following Bills, viz., Education (England and "Wales) Bill (1906), Plural Voting Bill (1906), Evicted Tenants Bill (1907), Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill (1907), the number of clauses disposed of without discussion (a) in Committee, and (b) on Report, under the order of the House for Allocation of time on the Bill."—(Mr. Jowett.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1906.
Copy ordered, "of Tables showing the progress of Merchant Shipping in the
116
United Kingdom and the principal Maritime Countries."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

COAL TABLES, 1906.
Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to the production, consumption, and imports and exports of coal in the British Empire and the principal foreign countries in each year from 1885 to 1906, as far as the particulars can be stated; together with statements showing the production of lignite and petroleum in the principal producing countries, for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 321, of Session 1906)."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
IRON AND STEEL, 1906.
Copy ordered, "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the production and consumption of Iron Ore and Pig Iron, and the production of Steel in the United Kingdom and the principal Foreign Countries in recent years, and the Imports and Exports of certain classes of Iron and Steel Manufactures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 322, of Session 1906)."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
EXPORTS TO CHINA AND SOUTH AMERICA.
Return ordered, "showing, so far as can be stated (1) the Exports to China, inclusive of Hong Kong, from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States for the years 1887 to 1906, and the average for each of the quinquennial periods ending 1891, 1896, 1901, and 1906, showing increase in value and percentage between the averages for the last and each earlier period; (2) a similar Return for the same periods showing Exports to Argentina from the same countries; and (3) a similar Return showing Exports from the same countries to the whole of South America (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 131, of Session 1906)."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1894 (PARISH COUNCI ELECTIONS, 1907.)
Return ordered, "of particulars respecting the Election of Parish Councils in Scotland in the year 1907 in the following form:—

County.

Name of Parishes and Parish Wards, distinguishing Parishes and Wards in a Burgh or Police Burgh.

Number of Electors in Parish or Parish Ward.

Number of Electors who voted.

Percentage of Electors who voted to the number of Electors on Register.

Name of Parish.

Name of Parish. Wards

Name of Burgh or Police Burgh in which Parish Wards are situated.

County Council Register.

Town Council Register.

Parish Council Register.

County Council Election.

Town Council Election.

Parish Council Election.

County Council Election.

Town Council Election.

Parish Council Election.

—(MR. Sinclair.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Legal Expenses Incurred for Recovery of Loan from Thomas Beirne.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the total amount of legal expenses incurred by instituting two separate trials in the courts, and making two appeals arising therefrom, for the recovery of a sum of £4 Os. 3d. loaned to Thomas Beirne in 1894 under the powers of the Loan for Drainage Maintenance Act of 1866.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The total cost of the legal proceedings in this case was £26 15s. 9d. The particulars of the proceedings are stated on page 9 of a Return to an Order of this House, viz., No. 304, of the present session.

  Foot and Mouth Disease in Australia.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture have any record of any outbreak at any time of foot-and-mouth disease in the sheep and cattle of Australia or New Zealand; and, if not, whether cattle or sheep from either of these Colonies would be allowed to land at the foreign cattle market at Deptford.
  118
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Answer to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the negative. There is nothing in the Foreign Animals Order to prevent animals from Australia or New Zealand being landed in this country provided they are brought there direct, but I understand that it is found necessary in practice for vessels from those countries to call at a port in one of those countries from which importation is prohibited, and in such circumstances the animals could not be landed in this country. An attempt was made several years ago to start a trade in live animals from Australasia, but the results were so disastrous to the cattle carried that the experiment was not repeated.

  Application of Thomas Balmer for Vacant Post at Hillsborough.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Balmer, of Hillsborough, county Down, petitioned for a vacant post between Hillsboirough and Edentrillick in February last; whether he is further aware that the post had then been vacant for a considerable period, and that up to the present time Mr. Balmer has received no reply to his application; and whether he can now announce his decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Under a revision of the postal arrangements in the neighbourhood of Belfast and Lisburn it was decided to transfer a certain portion of the Lisburn postal

  119
  area to the control of the postmaster of Belfast. This involved the displacement of a rural postman at Lisburn, and the conflicting claims of the men whose duties were affected necessitated pro longed discussion of the proposals. Meanwhile, the Hillsborough to Edentrillick rural post, which is in the Lisburn area, was kept vacant in order to provide for the postman who would be displaced. In these circumstances it was not possible to give Mr. Balmer a definite reply to his petition for the post. The changes have been carried into effect, and a reply will be sent to Mr. Balmer.

  Late Delivery of Mails at Carndonagh and Culdaff.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether anything is being done to remedy the inconvenience and loss to which the town of Carndonagh and district, and also Culdaff, are subjected by the late delivery of mails; and whether he will take steps to have the grievance removed.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The matter is receiving consideration, and I am in hope that it may be found possible to effect a material improvement in the hour of delivery in Carndonagh and district.

  Duties of Clerks to Boards of Guardians.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what, under the existing Orders of the Local Government Board, is the duty of a clerk to a board of guardians as to the examination of certain accounts of other officers of his board; what is the nature and extent of such examination; and whether the Orders confer any power or cast any responsibility upon a clerk to supervise or control the affairs of any other officer of a union, being the head of a department, who is a directly accounting officer to the guardians and to the district auditor.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Article 25 of the General Order for the Accounts of Boards of Guardians provides as follows:—"On the day next before every ordinary meeting of the board of guardians, or on the day of such meeting, but previous to the meeting, the clerk shall examine the master's day book,
  120
  and shall compare the entries of invoices and bills with the invoices and bills themselves, and shall see that all the goods supplied and works done are carried by the master to the proper accounts, and shall certify the correctness of the same by his initials. He shall also compare the entries of payments in the master's receipt and payment account with the vouchers, and ascertain that the master has debited this account with all sums received by him, and produces proper vouchers for all payments made by him, and shall insert his initials at the foot of such account. And he shall inspect the other books required to be kept by the master by this Order, so as to ascertain that they are duly kept in proper form and with due regularity The clerk shall also, at the same time, examine the weekly account in each relieving officer's outdoor relief lists and receipt and expenditure book, so as to ascertain the accuracy of the entries therein and that the relief has been given in accordance with the orders of the guardians, by comparison with the relief order book, and shall certify the correctness of the same by his initials. The clerk shall report to the guardians at the said meeting the result of his examinations. And the master and the relieving officer shall respectively, subject to any direction of the board of guardians, present their books and accounts to the clerk for his examination on such day as aforesaid." As I indicated in reply to the previous Question of my hon. friend, it is the clerk's duty, as far as may be, to give to the other officers the instructions requisite for the prompt and correct execution of all orders and directions of the Local Government Board and of the guardians, and to report to the guardians any neglect or failure therein which may come to his knowledge. This duty devolves on him in respect of every officer, whether he conies within the category referred to in the last part of the Question or not.

  The Hague Conference and the Shipbuilding Programme.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the-resolution as to the desirability of resuming the consideration of the question of the growing expenditure on armmaents

  121
  carried at The Hague Conference, and in view of his announcement as to the additional battleship as part of this year's shipbuilding programme, he now proposes to proceed with the construction of such ship.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) It would be premature to anticipate the results of The Hague Conference, which has not yet concluded its deliberations.

  Construction Abandoned Under the Naval Works Acts.
  MR. MURRAY MACDONALD: To ask the Secretary to I the Admiralty if he will give a list of the works constructed under the Naval Works Acts which have not been completed, or which have been abandoned, or which have proved to be unnecessary, and of the amounts spent on each of them.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) I am not quite sure if I understand what my hon. friend requires. A copy of the statement showing the original and revised cost of these works is being sent him, and will, I hope, afford him the requisite information.

  Hours and Conditions of Labour in Foreign Dockyards.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if if he can yet make a statement in respect to the hours and conditions of labour in the dockyards abroad.
  Answered by Mr. Lambert.) Some points of detail still remain to be settled before any statement can be made.

  The Home Fleet and the Autumn Manœuvres.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the official intimation that the ships of the Home Fleet will take part in the autumn manœuvres this year refers only to ships of the Home Fleet manned with nucleus crews, or to the division formed in March last and constituted from battleships and cruisers withdrawn from other fleets, or whether both are included.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) Thirty-eight fully-manned vessels of the Home
  122
  Fleet will take part in the exercises, including the Nore division of battleships and cruisers.

  German Shipbuilding Programme.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Government have the services of a naval attaché in Berlin; if so, how it comes that the Admiralty are in ignorance of the progress made by the German Government in carrying out their shipbuilding programmes of 1905–6 and 1906–7, and have not obtained the information available to the Press of this country; and whether the Board intend to take any, and what, steps to ensure their being made acquainted promptly with all information that can be legitimately acquired by their representatives abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The Admiralty have no knowledge of any official information published by the German Government on this subject. They are satisfied with the information supplied by their naval attaché at Berlin, which they do not propose to divulge.

  Housing of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what provision is being made by the Government for the housing of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I cannot concur in the assumption of this Question, viz., that the Government is responsible for the provision of accommodation for the Royal Scottish Geographical Society. But I am aware that the society is in correspondence with the Board of Trustees of the National Galleries with reference to the rooms which the society have hitherto rented in the National Portrait Gallery buildings; and I have undertaken to look into the circumstances.

  Coal Exports.
  MR. FELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the latest Returns show any slackening of the abnormal demand for coal from

  123
  the Continent; and if he can give the amount of the export of coal from the United Kingdom during the months of June and July of each of the years 1905, 1906, and 1907.

  Statement showing the registered quantities of coal exported from the United Kingdom to the Continent of Europe and other destinations during the months of June and July in each of the years 1905, 1906, and 1907;—

  Exports to

  1905.

  1906.

  1907.

  June.

  July.

  June.

  July.

  June.

  July.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  European Countries

  3,153,421

  3,423,086

  3,571,938

  4,128,940

  4,405,584

  5,259,453

  Other destinations

  675,835

  708,987

  693,879

  898,222

  915,509

  839,210

  Total.

  3,829,256

  4,132,073

  4,265,817

  5,027,162

  5,321,093

  6,098,663

  Uneconomic Holdings on the Doherty Estate.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received a petition from the tenants on the Doherty Estate Caherglissane, near Kinvara, Galway, pointing out that negotiations were going on for the sale to them of their holdings, and directing attention to the fact that two large farms on the estate were excluded from the terms of sale; and, having regard to the small uneconomic holdings on the property, whether the Commissioners will make inquiry into the matter, with a view of securing the untenanted land in the interest of the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not received the petition referred to, and that no proceedings for the sale of the estate have been instituted before them.
  124
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed on inquiry at the Customs that there is at present no indication of a slackening in the demand for British coal on the Continent.

  Irish imports and Exports.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to ensuring complete accuracy in the official publication by the Irish Department of Agriculture of Irish exports, he will represent to the self-governing and other Colonies the necessity of recording, as far as possible, the imports from Ireland; and whether, if it is not found to be practicable to do this forthwith, efforts will be made to give such information in their annual Reports as will be of use to the Irish Department and to Irish traders.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Government of Canada has reported that the separation of imports of Irish produce in the Canadian Trade Returns is deemed to be impracticable, and under the circumstances I see no advantage in pressing other Colonies to make this change. There is no reason to believe that any Colony omits from its Reports

  125
  information likely to be of value to any part of the United Kingdom, without distinction.

  Principal Clerk in the Audit Office Acting as Secretary to the Royal Almoner.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a principal clerk in the Audit Office in receipt of £850 per annum acts as paid secretary to the Royal Almoner; and, if so, seeing that his duties as paid secretary are performed during the usual official hours which obtain in the Audit Office, will he explain what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the officer referred to, who has acted as secretary to the Lord High Almoner since 1st January, 18S6, was permitted by the then Comptroller-General to accept the post, the duties of which are not onerous, on the distinct understanding that they should be performed outside the regular office hours, and this condition has been strictly complied with.

  Transfer of Irish Savings Bank Work to Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that a large number of Savings Bank women clerks were asked by the Savings Bank authorities, either privately or officially, some time before the present Government came into office, if they would serve in Dublin, that the percentages of Irish deposits and withdrawals made through British deposit books and vice versa, as worked out by the Savings Bank, either privately or officially, show only one per cent. approximately on the totals, that, apart from the enormous inconvenience to Irish depositors, Ireland loses £30,000 per annum by having the Irish Savings Bank accounts kept in London, that 99 per cent. of the manufactured stuff used in the Post Office in Ireland is not manu-
  126
  factured in Ireland, that clerical work can be as efficiently and, having regard to the cost of housing accommodation, more economically performed in Dublin than in London, and that it would be more in conformity with Irish ideas if the Irish Savings Bank accounts were kept in Dublin, he will further consider the advisability of transferring the work of keeping these accounts from London to Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have already replied to these Questions, and I am afraid I have nothing further to add.

  Postal Facilities at Carrick-on-Shannon.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will consider the question of improving the postal facilities in the sub-district of Carrick-on-Shannon, parish of Glass, and. particularly in the direction of the district stretching towards Blacklion, in county Cavan.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and on its receipt I will send the hon. Member a reply.

  Postal Servants—The Efficiency Bar.
  MR. STEADMANTo ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to his declarations that loss of seniority is a punishment imposed only in cases of grave misconduct, and that there is no question of punishment for failure to pass the bar, and that all rules relating to the efficiency bar are of uniform application, officers failing to pass the efficiency bar lose their seniority; and whether this is one of the penalties generally imposed in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Delay in Arrival of English Letters at Downpatrick.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is

  127
  aware that during the past three weeks, with very few exceptions, English letters have not reached Downpatrick, county Down, until the train arriving at 11.38 a.m. and on many occasions by the train arriving at 2.55 p.m., which causes inconvenience to business and professional men in the town; and that, prior to the period mentioned, English letters were regularly delivered in Downpatrick at 11 a.m., travelling by the train leaving Belfast at 9.35 a.m.; and if he will explain the reason of the present delay, and take steps to have it remedied.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and on its receipt I will send the hon. Member a reply.

  Letter Sorting at Manchester Sub-Post Offices.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether a system of sorting letters for despatch has been introduced into certain sub-offices in the Manchester postal district with the object of relieving the pressure of work at the head office; whether this will impose more work and expense upon the sub-postmasters; and, if so, whether it is his intention to remunerate those sub-postmasters who are paid by commission for the extra work and responsibilities the now system will involve.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In order to relieve the pressure at the Manchester head office on the night mail despatch, certain sub-postmasters have been instructed to separate their correspondence into a few simple divisions. The arrangement is at present experimental; if authorised permanently
  128
  the sub-postmasters concerned will receive the usual remuneration provided in the scale of payment for such work.

  Regulation of the Movement of Swine.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the decline shown in recent official statistics in the production of swine in the three kingdoms; whether he is aware that this is attributed partly to the difficulties arising from the orders restricting the movement of swine, and further to the enormous confiscations by medical officers of health and meat inspectors of entire carcases alleged to be tuberculous, although in many cases only showing the slightest symptoms in one particular gland; whether he is aware that owing to these causes the importation of pigs from foreign countries, where more reasonable methods prevail, have greatly increased; and whether he will consider the advisability of adopting measures to remedy the grievances complained of by the Home producers.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Returns for 1907, which have just been tabulated, show a considerable increase in the number of pigs in Great Britain, the total being 2,636,808 as compared with 2,323,461 in 1906. The statistics of pigs always show consider able fluctuations from year to year, and it has never been possible to see any appreciable relation between them and the severity or otherwise of the swine fever restrictions. We have no information as to the extent to which swine have been seized after slaughter on account of tuberculosis, and on this point I would refer my hon. friend to the Local Government Board. It is certainly not the case

  129
  that the importation of pigs has increased in recent years. Only 150 pigs were imported in 1905 and none at all in any of the other years from 1899 to 1906, while the importation of pig-meat in 1906 was less than in 1904 and considerably less than in the years 1898 to 1901.

  Board of Agriculture and the Regulation of Swine.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state which is the particular authority responsible for the due carrying out of the various orders promulgated from time to time by the Board of Agriculture for regulating the movement of swine; whether he is aware that difficulty has arisen in different parts of the kingdom, to the inconvenience and loss of traders and all concerned in the rearing, feeding, and sale of pigs; also whether more convenient methods than those now in vogue could be adopted.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The orders in question are executed and enforced by the various local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Acts. It is, I fear, inevitable that restrictions of the character referred to should cause some inconvenience and possibly loss to traders and others concerned, but the Board endeavour to mitigate such in convenience, so far as this can be done consistently with the attainment of the object which they have in view.

  Bovine Tuberculosis.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the last Report of the Royal Commission I on Tuberculosis is of such a character as
  130
  will enable the Government forthwith to introduce legislation dealing effectively with bovine tuberculosis, especially in relation to the seizures and condemnation of alleged tuberculous meat, the consumption of which is alleged to be a serious menace to public health.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Report contains definite statements as to bovine tuberculosis in relation to milk, and these are receiving my consideration with a view to such legislation as may be necessary; but the question of tuberculous meat is not dealt with by the Report, and legislation on this subject could not be based upon it. I understand, however, that the question is now being investigated by the Royal Commission, who will report upon it in due course.

  Emigrants from British Ports.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say what were the numbers of emigrants of British nationality sailing from British ports annually for each of the last ten years to Canada, to other British dominions, and to foreign countries, respectively; and what are the corresponding estimated numbers for the present year.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Statement showing the number of British and Irish passengers (including cabin passengers) who left or arrived at the ports of the United Kingdom for or from ports in British North America, other British Colonies, and non-European foreign countries, respectively, during each of the years 1897 to 1906; and showing also the corresponding numbers for the seven months ending 31st July 1906 and 1907:—

  Year or period.

  British North America

  Other British Colonies and possessions

  Non-European Foreign Countries.

  Total

  Outward.

  Inward.

  Balance outward.

  Outward.

  Inward.

  Balance outward.

  Outward.

  Inward.

  Balance outward.

  Outward.

  Inward.

  Balance outward.

  1897

  15,571

  9,940

  5,631

  40,772

  27,431

  13,341

  90,117

  57,850

  32,267

  146,460

  95,221

  51,239

  1898

  17,640

  9,794

  7,846

  37,660

  25,822

  11,838

  85,344

  55,632

  29,712

  140,644

  91,248

  49,396

  1899

  16,410

  8,395

  8,015

  32,594

  33,292

  698*

  97,358

  58,559

  38,799

  146,362

  100,246

  46,116

  1900

  18,443

  10,640

  7,803

  42,672

  27,037

  15,635

  107,710

  59,960

  47,750

  168,825

  97,637

  71,188

  1901

  15,757

  8,636

  7,121

  46,373

  28,255

  18,118

  109,585

  62,808

  46,777

  171,715

  99,699

  72,016

  1902

  26,293

  11,563

  14,730

  65,930

  30,968

  34,962

  113,439

  61,584

  51,855

  205,662

  104,115

  101,547

  1903

  59,652

  13,786

  45,866

  71,300

  36,130

  35,170

  128,998

  62,998

  66,000

  259,950

  112,914

  147,036

  1904

  69,681

  18,397

  51,284

  49,823

  41,568

  8,255

  151,931

  84,616

  67,315

  271,435

  144,581

  126,854

  1905

  82,437

  19,934

  62,503

  50,525

  35,969

  14,556

  129,115

  66,809

  62,306

  262,077

  122,712

  139,365

  1906

  114,859

  23,596

  91,263

  55,312

  41,397

  13,915

  154,966

  65,473

  89,493

  325,137

  130,466

  194,671

  Seven 31st months ending July, 1900.

  79,098

  10,731

  68,367

  23,836

  28,395

  4,559*

  84,004

  39,143

  44,861

  180,938

  78,269

  108,009

  Seven 31st months ending July, 1907.

  107,151

  15,792

  91,359

  27,003

  32,773

  5,770*

  98,724

  48,243

  54,481

  232,878

  96,808

  136,070

  *Balance inward.

  Deaths from Starvation.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board in what number of cases did a coroner's jury return a verdict from starvation or death accelerated by privation in the year 1906 in London, in the eastern district of London and the union of Whitechapel, respectively; in what union in London did the greatest number of deaths so declared by verdict take place in 1906; and what was the number of cases with like verdict in England and Wales in 1906 outside the Metropolis.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that the number of cases is as follows:—In London, 49; in the eastern district of London, 13; in the Whitechapel union, 7. This was the union in which the greatest number of deaths of the kind referred to took place. The number of casesin which coroners' juries returned a verdict of death due to want, exposure, &c, outside London was 171.

  Meal Times for Devonport Dockyard Police.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will take steps during the coming winter to restore to the Metropolitan police, who are on duty in the Devonport Dockyard for eight hours without break, the privilege of being allowed to receive during such period a drink of hot tea, cocoa, coffee, or milk.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The practice in question was discontinued early in the year 1906, and it is not considered advisable to revert to it again, as it necessitates a constable leaving his beat during his period of duty. No exception is taken to the men carrying refreshment with them.

  Payment for Holidays in Deptford Victualling Yard and West India Dock Naval Store Depot.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
  134
  whether the order issued to the officer in charge of works, Greenwich Hospital, as to men who have been discharged on reduction and re-entered within a period of six months being paid for the recognised public holidays is also applicable to the labourers employed at the Deptford Victualling Yard and West India Dock Naval Stores Depot; and, if not, whether the order will be extended to include these men.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Civil Parishes and Liquor Licences.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state for England and Wales as a whole, and for each English and Welsh county, the number of civil parishes situated in rural districts and the total population of such civil parishes in each area; and if he will state for England and Wales as a whole, and for each English and Welsh county, the total number of such parishes which are situated in rural districts and have no on-licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors therein, together with the population in each such area for such total number of parishes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As regards the first part of the Question, the figures as given in the Local Government Board Statement of the 1st April, 1904, and the Census Return of 1901, are, for the whole of England and Wales, number of civil parishes in rural districts, 12,995; total population, 7,469,488. As regards the second part of the Question, the totals compiled from the Return which I obtained from the various police forces and furnished to my hon. friend on the 14th inst. are, for the whole of England and Wales, number of civil parishes in rural districts with no on-licences, 3,903; population, 575,219.
  The figures for each English and Welsh county separately are given in the appended Table:—

  County.

  (A.) Number of civil parishes in rural districts (on 1st April, 1904).

  (B.) Total population of rural districts (Census, 1901).

  (C.) Number of civil parishes in rural districts with no "on" licences.

  (D.) Total population of civil parishes with no "on" licences (Census 1901).

  England:

  Bedford

  127

  76,645

  11

  1,061

  Berks

  183

  125,578

  29

  4,883

  Bucks

  216

  130,030

  50

  6,175

  Cambridge

  129

  72,294

  13

  1,545

  Isle of Ely

  30

  30,766

  1

  18

  Chester

  406

  169,809

  184

  28,835

  Cornwall

  200

  192,003

  49

  11,853

  Cumberland

  188

  100,922

  40

  5,528

  Derby

  276

  255,014

  46

  6,586

  Devon

  414

  223,094

  115

  24,002

  Dorset

  271

  101,657

  111

  17,058

  Durham

  227

  333,102

  56

  12,403

  Essex

  360

  240,776

  43

  6,181

  Gloucester

  342

  229,700

  112

  21,740

  Hereford

  244

  76,748

  121

  19,624

  Hertford

  134

  103,273

  9

  740

  Huntingdon

  95

  36,234

  15

  1,309

  Kent

  362

  302,906

  52

  5,628

  Lancaster

  276

  232,472

  40

  6,860

  Leicester

  309

  137,502

  102

  8,824

  Lincoln

  695

  238,893

  319

  43,628

  Middlesex

  25

  51,165

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  132

  46,397

  44

  5,661

  County.

  (A.) Number of civil parishes in rural districts (on 1st April, 1904).

  (B.) Total population of rural districts (Census 1901).

  (C.) Number of civil parishes in rural districts with no "on" licences.

  (D.) Total population of civil parishes with no "on" licences (Census 1901).*

  Norfolk

  681

  258,071

  183

  22,298

  Northampton

  291

  121,070

  71

  8,488

  Soke of Peterborough

  29

  10,250

  10

  1,354

  Northumberland

  471

  124,763

  342

  36,777

  Nottingham

  247

  118,721

  82

  11,189

  Oxford

  272

  95,748

  75

  8,104

  Rutland

  58

  19,709

  21

  1,858

  Salop

  235

  135,878

  88

  15,067

  Somerset

  469

  245,829

  128

  18,392

  Southampton

  311

  197,352

  81

  12,603

  Isle of Wight

  30

  28,559

  4

  450

  Stafford

  217

  232,209

  49

  9,498

  Suffolk, East

  311

  123,639

  77

  12,272

  Suffolk, West

  168

  73,419

  33

  5,164

  Surrey

  104

  189,291

  10

  3,429

  Sussex, East

  131

  116,708

  23

  3,688

  Sussex, West

  155

  86,365

  41

  4,676

  Warwick

  246

  144,759

  83

  10,849

  Westmoreland

  105

  38,446

  35

  6,179

  Wilts

  310

  158,763

  69

  12,256

  Worcester

  206

  161,360

  59

  9,001

  York, East Riding

  324

  91,687

  132

  16,785

  York, North Riding

  508

  133,832

  202

  21,088

  York, West Riding

  512

  339,963

  162

  26,916

  Total

  12,032

  6,753,371

  3,622

  518,523

  County.

  (A.) Number of civil parishes in rural districts (on 1st April, 1904).

  (B.) Total population of rural districts (Census 1901).

  (c.) Number of civil parishes in rural districts with no "on" licences.

  (D.) Total population of civil parishes with no "on" licences (Census 1901).†

  Wales:

  Anglesey

  72

  34,750

  41

  10,272

  Brecon

  86

  38,020

  37

  5,068

  Cardigan

  95

  45,267

  36

  9,379

  Carmarthen

  79

  92,803

  9

  1,239

  Carnarvon

  64

  68,262

  19

  4,918

  Denbigh

  92

  90,815

  16

  1,766

  Flint

  41

  51,035

  5

  1,890

  Glamorgan

  133

  162,003

  33

  4,567

  Merioneth

  33

  26,581

  7

  3,778

  Montgomery

  59

  34,806

  8

  3,302

  Pembroke

  150

  53,705

  47

  7,461

  Radnor

  59

  18,070

  23

  3,056

  Total

  963

  716,117

  281

  56,696

  Grand total

  12,995

  7,469,488

  3,903

  575,219

  †The figures in this column have been furnished by police authorities and have not been checked with the official Census Report.

  Inspection of Mines.
  MR. GLOVER (St. Helens): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of times the inspectors and assistant inspectors of mines have inspected the mines during 1906 in the United Kingdom, without any connection with any accident, the number of inspections made in cases of fatal accidents and nonfatal accidents, the number of inquests the inspectors and assistant inspectors have attended during 1906, and the number of times they have attended the police courts during 1906.
  140
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of inspections of mines made by the inspectors of 1906 (excluding those of one inspector who retired in the course of the year and for whom the figures are not available.) was as follows:—(a) in connection with accidents, fatal or non fatal, 2,889; (b) otherwise than in connection with accidents, 5,785. The number of inquests on mining accidents attended in 1906 was 1,032; and the number of attendances at police or sheriff courts in mining cases, 37. One inspector is unable to distinguish the number of inspections in connection with

  141
  non-fatal accidents in coal mines, and they are therefore included under (b). It will be understood that when visiting a mine to investigate the circumstances of an accident an inspector would often take the opportunity of inspecting generally the workings of the mine.

  The Edalji Case—Charges Against the Staffordshire Police.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to say that there is no ground for the grave charges made against the Staffordshire police in connection with the case of G. Edalji.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Many allegations have been made against the Staffordshire police in connection with this case, but in my opinion they acted throughout in entire good faith,

  British North America.

  Other British Colonies.

  Non-European Foreign Countries.

  Total.

  Out going passengers from Scottish ports

  19,720

  3

  12,666

  32,389

  Incoming passengers to Scottish ports

  873

  —

  2,934

  3,807

  Balance outward

  18,847

  3

  9,732

  28,582

  Glasgow University—Chair of Hebrew.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Hebrew chair in Glasgow University is not open to candidates other than ordained ministers of the Established Church of Scotland; if so, whether this system has his sanction, in view of the fact that part of the salary is paid out of Parliamentary grants; and whether he will take steps to abolish this test for teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am aware of the position as stated by my hon. friend, but no change can be effected without legislation; and I am not prepared to give any undertaking on the subject.
  and there is no justification for the serious charges which have been made against them.

  Scottish Emigrants.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say how many emigrants of Scottish nationality have sailed from Scottish ports during the first seven months of the present year for Canada, for other British Colonies, and for foreign countries, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Statement showing the number of passengers (including cabin passengers) of Scottish nationality who left or arrived at the ports of Scotland for or from British North America, other British Colonies, and non-European foreign countries, respectively, during the seven months ending 31st July, 1907:—

  Retired Army Officers on Civil Case— Deductions for Pensions.
  MR. SMEATON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that retired officers of the British service employed on civil duty are mulcted in 10 per cent. of their salaries on account of their pensions, while retired officers of the Indian Army, employed on exactly the same kind of duty, suffer no deduction from their salaries on account of their pensions; and that the retired officers of the British service have smaller pensions than the retired officers of the Indian Army; and whether he will consider the justice of abolishing this discrimination, and permit the retired British officers to draw their full pay while performing

  143
  civil duties and, if necessary, amend the Superannuation Act and Regulations of 1887 to meet the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The facts are as stated; but, as I explained in reply to a Question by my hon. friend on the 22nd instant, though for administrative reasons the deduction is made from the civil salary, it is intended to be equivalent to the suspension of so much of the retired pay as may be deemed to be compensation for loss of employment. There is no intention of paying for the civil duties, as such, less than whatever may be the recognised rate of remuneration for those duties. Accordingly, where the retired pay is not a charge against the British Exchequer, there is no deduction from the civil salary. Whether, in such circumstances, a reduction in the rate of retired pay should be made by the authority which bears the charge for the retired pay is a matter for consideration by that authority; and, on that point, so far as it affects the Indian Army, I must refer my hon. friend to the Secretary of State for India. As I stated on the 22nd instant, I see no sufficient reason for amending The Superannuation Act, 1887, and the rules made thereunder.

  Mathematics in Irish National Schools.
  MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a new programme of mathematics for Irish national schools is in preparation; and, if so, when it will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the programmes for national schools, including the programme for mathematics whether taught as an extra subject outside school hours or as an optional subject during school hours, are at present being issued to managers and teachers.

  Purchase of Estate of Mr. E. M. Stack.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Mr. E. M. Stack has offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board his tenanted and untenanted lands at Mevoo and Ballyconry, North Kerry; and, if so, whether he can state how many acres
  144
  of tenanted land and how many acres of untenanted land has Mr. Stack offered for sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Mr. E. M. Stack has offered to sell to the Congested Districts Board 873 acres of land, of which 130 acres are untenanted. The Board are not, at present, in a position to make an offer for the purchase of this property.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that representations and petitions have been brought to the notice of the Estates Commissioners and their inspector, Mr. West, in connection with 144 acres of grazing and mountain turbary land situate in Knocknacaheragh, on Lord Listowel's estate, electoral division of Kilmeary, North Kerry; whether he is aware that Mrs. Kelly and Joseph Meade, who respectively held eighty-five and seventy-eight acres of land each, have signed agreements to purchase the 144 acres of mountain and grazing lands between them in addition to their already large holdings of eighty-five and seventy-eight acres each; and whether, owing to the representations that have been made, the Estates Commissioners will refuse to sanction the sale of this 144 acres of grazing and untenanted land to Meade and Kelly, more especially as there are in the immediate vicinity a number of uneconomic holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received representations to the effect stated in the Question, and will give the matter due consideration before sanctioning the advances which have been applied for by the purchasing tenants.

  Alleged Illegal Eviction at Tarbert.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Captain Leslie, D.L., of Tarbert, North Kerry, applied for and was given the services of two policemen by Sergeant Curran on Saturday, 29th June, 1907, to protect a bailiff to carry out an eviction after sunset; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to stop this illegal practice.

  145
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that there was no eviction after sunset in this case, but on the date mentioned a warrant for the possession of a tenement was executed by the police at about eleven o'clock a.m. The proceedings were at the suit of Captain Leslie against Daniel Dalton. The warrant was addressed to the police by the magistrate who made the order, and there was nothing illegal in the action of the police.

  Purchase of the Furlong, Brown, Bird and Harding Estates.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-

  Furlong Estate.

  Brown Estate.

  Bird and Harding Estate.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Price paid

  6,400

  0

  0

  735

  0

  0

  3,830

  0

  0

  Arrears due

  173

  11

  7

  13

  13

  6

  104

  5

  0

  First-term rents

  119

  18

  4

  34

  14

  0

  78

  11

  0

  Second term rents

  68

  12

  0

  —

  16

  12

  0

  Non-judicial rents

  126

  14

  0

  9

  0

  0

  125

  10

  0

  Total rental

  315

  4

  4

  43

  14

  0

  220

  13

  6

  Interest payable from

  29th Sept., 1906

  29th Sept., 1906

  1st Nov. 1906

  The Board have also purchased a lease of mining rights producing a rent of £40 year on the Furlong estate.

  Description of Bills.
  MR. WALKER: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that, from the beginning of next session, all Bills introduced into this House, other than those applying to the British Dominions beyond the seas, shall bear upon the outside some indication to show whether they apply to the whole of the United Kingdom or only to one or more of its constituent pares.
  (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) At present every Bill applying exclusively to Scotland or Ireland contains the word "Scotland" or "Ireland," as the case requires. It might, perhaps, be possible by means of directions given to the Government draftsman, in the case of Government
  146
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have purchased the Furlong, Brown, Bird, and Harding properties in Kilcrohane parish, county Cork; and, if so, can he state the price paid, arrears due at date of purchase, and yearly rent of each estate, also the total amount of first-term, second-term, and non-judicial rents, and from what date the Congested Districts Board will be liable for interest on purchase-money.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board have purchased the estates named, the required particulars in regard to which are as follows:—
  Bills, and to the Public Bill Office, in the case of private Members' Bills, to have Bills distinguished by the letters E., S., I., E.S., E.I., or U.K., so as to indicate their application. But there is no ground for supposing that the existing practice has caused difficulty or given rise to general complaint. And the multiplication of small rules of this kind is much to be deprecated. They cause delay. They are apt to be forgotten or overlooked, and their non-observance supplies a pretext for raising petty points of order, and for demands that a Bill be reprinted and re-issued in a correct form.

  Record of Parliamentary Time.
  MR. WALKER: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in order that there may be an official record of the time spent by this House upon the various matters that are brought before it, he

  147
  will arrange that, from the beginning of next session, the official Report shall mark the point reached at each half hour, as is done in the Parliamentary proceedings published by The Times) newspaper.
  (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman:) There is no difficulty in marking the point reached at each half hour in the Report of Debates, But this could not be done in the special Report of proceedings. Hours may, and often do, elapse between one entry and the next. Moreover, in the case of amendments, there is often only a general entry "Amendments made." Indeed, the whole system of recording the proceedings is inconsistent with the suggestion made.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.)

  Hague Conference and Armaments.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the resolution as to the desirability of resuming the consideration of the question of the growing expenditure on armaments carried at the Hague Conference, and in view of his announcement as to the additional battleship as part of this year's shipbuilding programme, he now proposes to proceed with the construction of such ship.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): It would be premature to anticipate the results of the Hague Conference, which has not yet concluded its deliberations.

  Naval Works Acts.
  MR. MURRAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give a list of the works constructed under the Naval Works Acts which have not been completed, or which have been abandoned, or which have proved to be unnecessary, and of the amounts spent on each of them.
  MR. LAMBERT: I am not quite sure if I understand what my hon. friend requires. A copy of the statement showing the original and revised cost of these
  148
  works is being sent him, and will, I hope, afford him the requisite information.

  Labour Conditions in Dockyards Abroad.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can yet make a statement in respect to the hours and conditions of labour in the dockyards abroad.
  MR. LAMBERT: Some points of detail still remain to be settled before any statement can be made.

  Home Fleet and the Autumn Manœuvres.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the official intimation that the ships of the Home Fleet will take part in the autumn manœuvres this year refers only to ships of the Home Fleet manned with nucleus crews, or to the division formed in March last and constituted from battleships and cruisers withdrawn from other fleets, or whether both are included.
  MR. LAMBERT: Thirty-eight fully manned vessels of the Home Fleet will take part in the exercises, including the Nore division of battleships and cruisers.
  MR. NIELD: Is it proposed that any of the vessels should be manned by nucleus crews?
  MR. LAMBERT: Nucleus crew vessels-will not take part in these exercises.

  German Naval Policy.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Government have the services of a naval attaché in Berlin; if so, how it comes that the Admiralty are in ignorance of the progress made by the German Government in carrying out their shipbuilding programmes of 1905–6 and 1906–7, and have not obtained the information available to the Press of this country; and whether the Board intend to take any, and what, steps to ensure their being made acquainted promptly with all information that can be legitimately acquired by their representatives abroad.
  MR. LAMBERT: The Admiralty have no knowledge of any official information published by the German Government on

  149
  this subject. They are satisfied with the information supplied by their naval attaché at Berlin, which they do not propose to divulge.

  Pimlico Clothing Factory—Cutters' Wages.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the wages paid to the cutters employed at the Pimlico Clothing Factory are below those rates paid by private firms for similar work in provincial towns, such as Leicester; and whether he will at once take steps to make the War Office model employers.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (; for Mr. HALDANE): The question as to whether the rates of pay of cutters in the Pimlico Clothing Factory should be revised is now under consideration.

  Pimlico Clothing Factory—Warehousemen's Wages.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are many married men with families employed at the Pimlico clothing factory as warehousemen at wages as low as 23s. per week; and whether he is aware that this payment is far below that prevailing at any other public authority for similar work; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. HALDANE): There are no warehousemen in the Pimlico factory. If the hon. Member refers to the storehousemen or porters, I would inform him that their wages were specially raised to 23s. a week on the 1st April, 1906, to bring them on a level with the minimum rate for unskilled labourers in the London area, and I do not propose to increase them.

  Royal Commission on Indian Decentralisation.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (, Forest of Dean): I big to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to give the names of the members of the Royal Commission on Indian Decentralisation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The Commission is composed as follows:—Chairman—Sir H. W. Primrose, K.C.B., C.S.I., I.S.O. (Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue). Members—Sir F. S. P. Lely, K.C.I.E., C.S.I. (lately Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces); Sir S. W. Edgerley, K.C. V.O., CLE. (Member of the Council of the Governor of Bombay); Mr. R. C. Dutt, C.I.E. (Indian Civil Service, retired); Mr. W. S. Meyer, C.I.E. (Secretary to the Government of India, Military Finance Branch); Mr. W. L. Hichens (lately Colonial Treasurer of the Transvaal).

  Affairs in the Punjab.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to make any statement to the House as to the condition of affairs in the Punjab, and as to when it will be possible for the Government of India to allow the persons who have been deported to Mandalay to return to their homes.
  MR. MORLEY: The most recent reports mark a gradual but distinct improvement in the Punjab, judging from the surface. If this improvement continues somewhat longer, and when we have good reason to believe that the two persons referred to in the Question are not likely to renew the course of mischievous action that brought them within reach of the law of 1818 for the security of the British dominions from internal commotion, then the time will have come for releasing them from the operation of that law. Nobody will be better pleased at the early arrival of that result than His Majesty's Government.

  Jamaica Legislature.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he is aware that in Jamaica there is not a single coloured man in the Legislature or even occupying any position of importance under the Government: and, in view of the fact that much of the discontent that at present exists in the island is due to this fact, whether it is the intention of the Government in the near future to institute legislation having for its object the entrusting of the people of that island with larger powers as to the management of their home affairs.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The hon. Member's Question is based on incorrect information. At the last election for the Legislative Council I understand that several coloured gentlemen were returned. No modification of the constitution of Jamaica is at present contemplated.

  Indian Coolies in Jamaica.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether a petition has been received from the National (Negro) Baptist Convention Foreign Board, which has a membership of 33,000 and some 100,000 to 120,000 adherents, or a total of nearly 150,000 of the population out of some 750,000 in the island, praying for a restriction of the importation of Indian coolies into Jamaica; and, if so, can he inform the House what action, if any, the Government intend to take in regard to the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The petition to which the hon. Member refers has been received and answered. It is not proposed to take any further action in the matter.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of Indian coolies imported into Jamaica during the past twenty years, giving the number for each year separately; the precise conditions under which they have been so imported; the length of their contracts of service; and the wages paid to such coolies.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I regret to say I am not in a position to afford this information which would involve much labour and some expense.

  Jamaica—Emigration of Negroes.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of negroes who have left Jamaica during the last twenty years in search of work elsewhere, stipulating the number for each year so leaving the island.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am unable to supply the hon. Member with the
  152
  information which he seeks, and I do not think that it would be possible to obtain it.

  Coolie Labour on Jamaica Sugar Plantations.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the sugar planters and others employing the coolies imported into Jamaica are subsidised in regard to same; and, if so, by whom such subsidy is paid, the Home or Colonial Government, and the extent per annum of such subsidy.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The sugar planters pay somewhat less than the total cost of the introduction of the coolies; the balance is borne by the Colonial Government. The excess amount which will be paid by the Colonial Government this year for the introduction of coolies has been estimated at £1,752.

  West Indian Native Labour Regulations.
  MR. FELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any regulations in existence in Trinidad or Jamaica, or other of the West Indian islands, to provide for proper protection of Natives recruited for places outside the islands, such as Panama, which assure that the nature of the occupation and the terms of contract as to pay, residence, food, hours of work, holidays, and repatriation, are made clear to the emigrating indentured labourers; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A Return will be laid upon the Table of the House giving a list of any ordinances dealing with the emigration of labourers from the British West Indian Colonies to foreign countries, and copies of all the laws in question and of any important regulations issued under the laws will be sent to the Library of the House of Commons. This will be more economical and will involve less labour than the printing of all the laws and regulations in the form of a Blue-book.

  Crime in South Africa.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State

  153
  for the Colonies whether he will state the total number of crimes committed in South Africa from 1st January to the 31st July, 1907; and what were the proportion of convictions per thousand of the particular nationalities among Chinese, Natives, East Indians, and whites respectively.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State regrets that the information at his disposal does not enable him to answer the hon. Member's inquiry.

  Concessions in Nigeria.
  MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a petition has been addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies from Southern Nigeria, West Africa, signed by the Awujale and Chiefs of Ijebu Ode, asking for protection and calling attention to the action of a European named Mr. Robert Brown, who has taken possession of a portion of their territory of a total approximate area of 600 square miles; whether Mr. Brown has, by force, prevented the natives from carrying on their customary business on the same; whether, as a consequence, unrest prevails in the district and that a Native war is likely to result, calling for the intervention of the forces of the Crown; whether he can state on what grounds Mr. Brown bases his claim; whether Mr. Brown has asked for and obtained promises of armed support from the Governor; and whether the Papers connected with this matter will be submitted to the House, and, if so, at about what date.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received a petition from the Awujale and Chiefs of Ijebu Ode relating to an agreement made by them with Mr. Brown under which Mr. Brown claims the right to out timber over an area of 100 square miles, not 600 as stated in the Question. The point at issue is the interpretation of the agreement. The Secretary of State is not aware that Mr. Brown has used force in support of his claim; nor that there is any such unrest in the district as would be likely to require the intervention of the forces of the Colonial Government; nor that Mr. Brown has asked for and obtained promises of armed support from the
  154
  Government. The Secretary of State is giving the matter his personal attention, he has received a deputation on the subject representing the Awujale and Chiefs, and is now consulting the Governor, who is at present in England. The hon. Member will observe that the matter has not yet reached a stage at which the Secretary of State can determine whether Papers should be laid.
  MR. NOLAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is a fact that the chiefs representing the people owning this territory waited upon Lieutenant Hearne, the District Commissioner, and pointed out to him in the hearing of all of them that the agreement made with Mr. Brown gave him a right only to prospect the forest, and that after the expiration of six months he was to return and get the concession granted, and that it gave him no right to drive anyone from the forest?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that if the hon. Member had any information to send him it would be considered, but he could not on the spur of the moment enter into details as to Nigerian administration; the whole matter was being fully considered.
  MR. NOLAN: Is it not the fact that Mr. Brown claimed 600 square miles and not 100, and that the consideration he gave for it was £20?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am told it is not 600 square miles but 100, and I conceive the sum paid was larger than that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ALDEN: Is it the fact that natives who had licences to cut timber have been actually flogged and imprisoned by the soldiers employed by Mr. Brown and will the right hon. Gentleman order their release?
  MR. CHURCHILL: If there has been any improper action the Secretary of State will certainly look into the matter.

  Imperial Conference Secretariat.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information, before the House rises, regarding the constitution of the

  155
  Imperial Secretariat, the creation of which was decided upon at the Imperial Conference.
  MR. CHUECHILL: At the Imperial Conference the Secretary of State indicated his willingness, first, so to separate the departments of the Colonial Office that there will be a distinct division dealing with the affairs of the Colonies possessing responsible government; and, secondly, to appoint a member of the Colonial Office to be Permanent Secretary to the Conference, so as to focus all business connected with it. The Secretary of State has made a statement in another place which sets forth the arrangements which are being made to constitute a separate division of the Office to deal with the self-governing Colonies and Protectorates or Possessions geographically connected with them. Mr. C. P. Lucas, the Senior Assistant Under-Secretary of State, will be head of that division, and Mr. H. W. Just, an Assistant Under-Secretary of State, who held the position of joint secretary to the last Conference, and has a special knowledge of South African affairs, having visited that country with a former Secretary of State for the Colonies, will be Permanent Secretary to the Conference. A despatch explaining these arrangements in detail will be addressed to the Governors of the self-governing Colonies and will be laid on the Table.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. CHURCHILL added: There will be two main departments—the Colonial Department and the Dominions Department. The latter will have the responsibility of the self-governing Colonies and the Possessions geographically associated with them. The Protectorates will be under the Colonial Department.
  MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square): Will the position of Mr. Just, the secretary to the Conference, be in the Dominions Department?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; it will be in association with the Dominions Department, but it is an extra feature of the Dominions Department. It is that portion of the Dominions Department which will be charged with the duty of preserving the link between Conference and Conference.
  MR. REES: Does this leave the Crown Agents' position as before?
  MR. CHURCHILL: There will be no alteration there.

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has received any information from the Governor of the Transvaal as to the number of Chinese labourers in the mines whose contracts have already expired, and as to the date of their deportation to China.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I made the inquiry as desired by the hon. and learned Member in his previous Questions of last week and learn that the next shipload of labourers leaves Durban on or about 1st September in the steamship "Swanley" to the number of about 2,350. A portion of this number no doubt, but I do not know how many, are being repatriated on other grounds than that of the expiry of their contracts.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the statement made by the Prime Minister of the Transvaal that 30,000 Kaffirs had applied for labour in the mines and had gone elsewhere, and whether it would not be possible to arrange for the acceleration of the departure of the Chinese coolies.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that he had seen that statement, but he understood that the policy of the Transvaal Government was that the Chinese coolies now employed in South Africa should be repatriated in a steady stream on the termination of their indentures. While he could not hold out the hope that the Government would force forward that process, it was open to the Transvaal Government to accelerate the departure by any means they thought fit.

  Repatriation of Chinese.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total number of Chinese coolies who were repatriated in the steamship "Heliopolis" on 2nd July, and how many of them were repatriated under Section 7 of Ordinance 27 of 1905 as being a

  157
  danger to the exercise of proper control on any mine.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The total number repatriated on the "Heliopolis" is understood to have been 1,948 and of these 413 or 414 were repatriated under Section 7 of Ordinance 27 of 1905.

  Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received precise information with regard to the essential provisions of the Bill introduced into the Transvaal Legislature for prolonging the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State understands that the essential points of the Bill are (1) the Labour Importation Ordinance and Regulations are kept alive in respect of each labourer now in the country until the expiry of the existing contract for three years and, in addition, in the case of each labourer, for such further period, not exceeding two months, as will enable repatriation in accordance with the Ordinances to take place; and (2) existing bonds entered into by importers to repatriate labourers at their own cost at the end of the contracts are kept alive.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Then the same Ordinance has in fact been re-enacted?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the same Ordinance had been re-enacted with a provision that the mineowner was bound to pay the cost of repatriation, though no renewal would be allowed.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the servile conditions, expressly prohibited by the terms of the Constitution, were to be re-enacted for three years.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the Ordinance had not yet come to this country, and he could not forecast what would be the action of the Government upon it. But it appeared to him that the Transvaal Government had preferred to terminate rather than to touch the details of the system of Chinese labour which prevailed.

  Company Promotion in Egypt.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord
  158
  Cromer prescribed certain restrictions upon company promotion in Egypt, with a view to the protection of the investing public; and if the Answer be in the affirmative, whether he will inform the House what such restrictions were.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,, for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend can only refer the hon. Member to the heading "Mining Concessions" in Lord Cromer's Report for 1903, page 29.

  Denshawi Prisoners.
  MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state where the prisoners sentenced to penal servitude at Denshawi are carrying out their sentences; what is the nature of their labour, and if they are in irons; and whether, if they had been tried under the ordinary law, such punishments as they are now suffering could have been imposed on them.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has not the special information asked for on these points, but the sentences of imprisonment are served in the same way as if they had been imposed by the ordinary law.

  Denshawi Trials.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the decree under which the special tribunal which tried the Denshawi prisoners was set up in any way prescribes what law is to be administered or what punishments may be inflicted; and whether he can say if the law actually applied in the Denshawi trials was British, Egyptian, or Mahomedan.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend can only refer the hon. Member to the text of the decree, which has been laid before Parliament, and to the observations of Lord Cromer as to the kind of punishments which should in future be prescribed if the Special Tribunal were again called into existence.

  Egyptian National Party's Platform.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State

  159
  for foreign Affairs whether he has received an outline of the views and wishes of the Egyptian nation as regards changes in the administration of Egypt which have already been sanctioned by the general assembly at its recent meeting, forwarded to him as Member of the House of Commons by W. A. Hafiz-Amoud, the proposals for the establishment of the constitution being based on the schemes put forward by Lord Dufferin in 1883; whether he is aware that the programme of the Egyptian national party embraces free and compulsory education in kuttobs and primary schools, Arabic being the medium of instruction in all schools, the conferring of legislative powers on the general assembly and legislative council in matters relating purely to Egyptian affairs, the gradual substitution of Egyptian for European officials, and the transference of the criminal jurisdiction of the Consular Courts to Mixed Courts with subsidiary grants; and whether, having regard to the fact that these proposals are authoritatively declared to constitute the minimum of the reforms necessary for Egyptian needs and aspirations, the Government will take any and, if so, what steps in the immediate future towards their concession.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has received a communication of the nature described by the hon. Member. But he has nothing to add to the statement of policy which he made in the debate on the Foreign Office Vote.

  Denshawi Trials.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the decree of 1895, under which the Denshawi prisoners were tried, excludes all right of appeal against sentences; and whether this also precludes the exercise of clemency on the part of the Khedive in the case of capital sentences such as is provided for by the ordinary law of Egypt.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The text of the decree, which the hon. Member will find on Page 3 of Parliamentary Paper "Egypt No. 3 (1906)" states, in the last paragraph of Article 4, that the sentences of the Special Tribunal shall not be subject to appeal. If the hon. Member will refer to page 24 of the same Paper,
  160
  he will see that the adoption of some procedure by which the decisions of the Special Tribunal should be confirmed by some superior authority is under consideration, and the Tribunal will not be called into existence without some such provision.

  Nickel Coinage.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will have placed in the Library or other room of this House, for the inspection of Members, specimens of all the nickel, or other inexpensive alloys, coins now in use in the various Colonies and Dependencies of the Empire.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The coins may be inspected at the Mint; but if there is any general demand to have them exhibited in the Library, I will arrange to have specimens shown there next session. I would, however, point out to my hon friend that the alloys of which those coins are made are more costly than bronze, and cannot therefore be strictly described as inexpensive.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will in all future issues of British coins of low values now minted in bronze have such coins made of similar light and cleanly form and metal as the new nickel coins recently minted for the use of the British Colonies in Eastern and Western Africa.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The new nickel-bronze coin (10 cents) now being issued for Uganda is heavier than the Imperial bronze penny, and the nickel-bronze penny for West Africa is of the same weight. My right hon. friend does not believe that the substitution of nickel-bronze for bronze would be satisfactory to those who use most largely the existing subsidiary bronze coinage. Aluminium would not be a satisfactory metal for our coins, and both nickel-bronze and aluminium would be more costly. A concurrent issue and circulation of nickel and bronze coins would lie attended with great practical difficulties, and the substitution of nickel for bronze in a coinage in which silver pieces of small denomination are so largely used would probably lead to much confusion and inconvenience.

  161
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. ESSEX,
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the possibility of confusion was a very serious one, particularly with people not accustomed to make the distinction. The West African nickel coins were distinguished by being perforated. The statement as to comparative cost was based on the actual cost of the bronze, nickel-bronze, and aluminium coins now being issued by the Mint.

  Mortlake Doctor and Death Certificates.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a case at Mortlake on the 22nd instant, in which a certain doctor appeared to answer six summonses against him for having refused on the 8th and 11th July, without reasonable cause, to give certificates of the cause of death of three infants, therefore necessitating inquests to be held when he would have been entitled to foes amounting to six guineas; and whether he will instruct coroners to disallow fees to medical men, although called as witnesses, if in the opinion of the coroner there was no substantial grounds for the holding of an inquest.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I cannot express any opinion on this case, which appears from the newspaper reports to have been adjourned by the magistrates for further consideration by a full Bench; but, in any case, I have no authority to issue such instructions to coroners as are suggested in the Question.

  Southwark Police Court.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is responsible for selecting the site upon which the Southwark police court, Tooley Street, is erected; whether any inquiry was made to secure a site in a more central and convenient position; whether the land is held on lease or whether the freehold has been purchased, and, if so, the cost; and whether he can state the total cost of the structure, and whether
  162
  it is finished or whether any further expenditure is contemplated.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District is primarily responsible for selecting sites for police courts, but the approval of the Chief Magistrate, the Commissioner of Police, and the Secretary of State is required before a site is finally decided on. No site of sufficient area in a more suitable position was available. The land was freehold subject only to a perpetual charge of £24 19s. 8d. in lieu of land tax redeemed. The site cost £8,161, and the total cost of building was £28,027. No further expenditure is contemplated.

  Jersey Battle of Flowers.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Cecil Douglas, of Ealing, who, during a battle of flowers at Jersey, a few days ago, knocked off a policeman's helmet with a light basket, and was sentenced by Judge Vaudin to twenty-four hours imprisonment, without the option of a fine, during which time he was confined as an ordinary criminal, and was without food (except a glass of milk, given by medical orders) during the whole of his imprisonment; whether he is aware that the incident has aroused feelings of indignation throughout the island of Jersey; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have communicated with the Lieutenant-Governor, who informs me that the magistrate is of opinion that such a fête as the battle of flowers in Jersey is only possible if any attempt at rowdyism is put down with a firm hand. In the case referred to by the hon. Member it appears that the defendant committed an undoubted assault, striking a policeman with a basket held in both his hands. The sentence passed on him only involved detention from about 11 a.m. till about 5.30 p.m. on the same day. The glass of milk mentioned in the Question was in addition to the ordinary first-class prison diet.
  MR. NIELD: Is the right hon. gentleman aware that first-class prison diet in Jersey is bread and water?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then the glass of milk was in addition.

  The Sun Inn, Holywell.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Sun Inn, Holywell, the licence of which, though taken out, has not been used for the purpose of sale for the last six years, but which it is now attempted to revive by means of repeated applications for transfer; and whether, in view of the decision in Reg. v. Gotham (1898), he would consider the desirability of drawing the attention of clerks of justices to the necessity of preventing such revival of licences declared by the Courts to be extinct.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I gathered from the newspaper cuttings with which my hon. friend has been good enough to furnish me that the question of the transfer of this licence is still under the consideration of the Bench, who are aware of the decision in the case referred to in the Question. I do not think it would be expedient for me to attempt to advise magistrates' clerks on this subject.

  Australian Tariff.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish at the earliest possible date a Parliamentary Paper showing the changes effected by the new Australian tariff in the duties on British goods.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): An edition of the new Australian tariff with a comparative statement of the duties previously in force on British goods will be issued at as early a date as possible.

  Austria Hungary—New Tariff.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Consular Report from Austria-Hungary (3900) that the new tariff must be largely responsible for the general increase in prices, and which has made living in Austria dearer than ever; that this increase in prices is not confined to
  164
  imported articles, as the manufacturers in the country understand how to utilise the additional protection by raising prices to home consumers; whether he can state the average amount of ad valorem duties under the former tariff and under the new; and whether he can state if an increase in wages has been made corresponding with the increased cost of living.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have seen the statement referred to. The Board of Trade have already published two Returns giving information with regard to the rates of the new Austria-Hungary Tariff'(Cd. 1672/03 and Cd. 2917/06), but it is not practicable to give the average ad valorem equivalent of the very varying rates of duty. As regards the question as to any recent increase of wages in Austria-Hungary I am having inquiries made.

  Coal Trade.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the latest Returns show any slackening of the abnormal demand for coal from the continent; and if he can give the amount of the export of coal from the United Kingdom during the months of June and July of each of the years 1905, 1906, and 1907.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed on inquiry at the Customs that there is at present no indication of a slackening in the demand for British coal on the continent. I will have a statement with regard to the export of coal from the United Kingdom for the months named printed in the Votes.

  Joint Stock Companies and Municipal Government.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can see his way to introduce legislation to give joint stock companies representation on local bodies in the same proportion with and in like manner as representation is allowed to compound householders.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): As I stated in reply to a similar Question on the 19th inst., I am not able to promise to introduce a Bill on this subject.

  Wolverhampton Unemployed.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received an application from the town clerk of Wolverhampton on behalf of his distress committee, asking for the sum of £150 for the purpose of finding employment for the unemployed by schemes of afforestation; and whether, as this application was made before the last £200,000 was granted, and that he made a further application, he will say if there is any reason why the sum asked for has not been granted to this district, where afforestation is badly needed and where good work has already been done by this form of beautifying the landscape.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: On the 30th March last I received an application from the distress committee for a payment from the grant of £150 to be expended in afforestation operations next winter. It appeared to me, however, that I could not properly make a payment out of the grant voted in the year 1906–7 in respect of works of afforestation to be carried out in the winter of 1907–8. The further application made to me by the distress committee was received on the 3rd April, when the period during which any payment could be made out of the grant had expired. I cannot at present say whether there will be exceptional need for assistance in the provision of temporary work for the unemployed at Wolverhampton next winter, but if later in the year this should appear to be probable and the distress committee renewed their application I should be prepared to consider it.

  Wayland Workhouse.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his Board is attempting, through a threat of dissolution by their inspector, to force the Board of Guardians of Wayland, Norfolk, to build a new workhouse at a probable cost of £20,000, the present workhouse having been built for 300 inmates and containing now under 100; and whether, under the circumstances, he will postpone the matter until the Poor Law Commission has made its report.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The condition of the existing workhouse is very unsatisfactory, and the Local Government
  166
  Board through their inspector and other wise have for some time past been urging the guardians to provide better accommodation. I do not think that there is any sufficient reason for postponing the matter until the Poor Law Commissioners have made their report. The need for action is recognised by the guardians themselves, who have lately resolved to provide a new infirmary, but I have not at present received the details of the proposal.
  MR. FELL: Cannot the existing building be repaired instead of putting up a new building?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am, I believe, to receive a deputation on that point.

  Tidworth Barracks Contract.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury by what date the contractor for the building of the cavalry barracks at Tidworth is under an obligation to complete the building, and what weekly penalties will be enforced in the event of non-fulfilment of the terms of the contract.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this Question. The contract date for completion of these stables is 30th January next. The penalties for non-completion under the contract have been fixed at a figure which it is considered is ample to safeguard the Department.

  Post Office and Leadless-Glaze Ware.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what progress has been recently made in his attempts to introduce leadless-glaze ware in the Post Office Contracts.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am sorry to say that my experience with leadless-glazed insulators which have been bought in large quantities for years, has not so far been altogether satisfactory. Up to now the glaze is so much inferior to the lead-glaze as to affect adversely the insulation of a telegraph line. I am, nevertheless, still using a considerable number of leadless-glazed insulators where it is possible, and I have been in communication with my right hon. friend the Member for the

  167
  Forest of Dean with the view of increasing the number of firms who will make them at a reasonable price, and I hope with improved insulation.

  Special Education Grant.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the expenditure upon new schools to be provided under the special grant will be controlled and supervised by local education authorities; and, if so, whether the lump sum thus paid to the authorities will be subject to Government audit and to the surrender of unexpended surplus.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKENNA,): The grant referred to will only be made in aid of expenditure actually incurred by the local authority, consequently no question of surrender is involved. The expenditure will be audited in the same manner as the other accounts of the local education authority. The Board's approval will be required to the plans of any building in aid of which a grant is made, and in considering whether the whole, or, if not, what proportion, of the cost shall be met from the grant the Board will, of course, ascertain that no excessive expenditure has been incurred.

  Penmachno School.
  LORD R, CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that a temporary school has been recently opened to relieve the overcrowding of Penmachno non-provided school; that His Majesty's inspector reported that it was essential that a certificated teacher should be employed to take charge of this school; that after eleven months such a teacher has been procured, and that the local education authority now decline to confirm his appointment; and what steps the Board of Education propose to take in the matter.
  MR. McKENNA: I understand that a teacher, though not a certificated teacher, is employed at present in the temporary building. I am in communication with the inspector and the local education authority as to the advisability or other-
  168
  wise of replacing him by a certificated teacher.

  Penrhyndeudraeth School Cleaner.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can afford any official assistance to enable the cleaner of the Penrhyndeudraeth voluntary school to recover the 15s. due to her on the 30th June last, and unpaid by the local education authority.
  MR. McKENNA: No, Sir; as I have already stated, I have received no complaints from the managers as to the matter referred to, and until any such complaint is received I have no jurisdiction to intervene.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is the House to understand that this poor woman has no remedy?
  MR. McKENNA: She has no remedy as far as I am concerned.
  LORD R. CECIL: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. This is becoming like a Court of law.

  Mortomley School Dispute.
  MR. BOLANI): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to state if the local education authority has paid the salaries due to the teachers of the Mortomley Catholic School.
  MR. McKENNA: I understand that the salaries have been paid.
  MR. CARLILE: And has the right hon. Gentleman expressed his displeasure at this abominable delay on the part of the local education authority?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  Llanethian School.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what steps should have been taken by the managers of the Llanethian School in 1906 to obtain a teacher at the salary then offered by the local authority.
  MR. McKENNA: One of the obstacles in the way of obtaining a teacher at the salary then offered was that the managers had not kept the teacher's house in good repair. I cannot, of course, state all the possible steps that the managers might have taken, but to remedy that particular state of things was certainly one of them.

  Grants for New Schools.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education by what date it will be necessary for local education authorities to place their claims for a share in the £100,000 for the erection of new schools in the hands of the Board of Education.
  MR. McKENNA: The sooner such claims are sent in to the Board of Education, now that the Appropriation Act has been passed, the better, since no grant will be payable under the present Vote after 31st March next.

  Merionethshire Education Dispute.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what action is being taken by his Department in respect of salaries owed by the local education authority to teachers in certain non-provided schools in Merionethshire.
  MR. McKENNA: I propose to pay the salaries of those teachers whose claims have been certified as correct.
  LORD R. CECIL: Under the Default Act?
  MR. McKENNA: Certainly. I have no other powers.
  MR. LYTTELTON: And what is to be done in the case of those other teachers who have not received their salaries from private sources?
  MR. McKENNA: As to the other teachers, I am sorry for them, but the managers refused to pay over their salaries, and the Default Act cannot be put into operation until the managers have paid. We can, therefore, do nothing for them.
  LORD BALCARRES: We can assume that the Board of Education will also repay other salaries that have been withheld?
  MR. McKENNA: Yes, if the circumstances prove to be the same. But I cannot give a general undertaking.

  Garforth School.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether in the event of the accommodation in the Garforth parochial school being insufficient, the course incumbent on the Board of Education was to require a reduction of the attendance to the number for which adequate accommodation is provided; under what section of any Education Act the Board claims the right to insist upon the reorganisation of the school; and whether the Board is advised that Section 7, Subsection (3), of the Act of 1902 gives the Board authority to intervene in case of a difference between the local education authority and the managers of a non-provided school.
  MR. McKENNA: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative, and it is the necessity for bringing about that reduction in the accommodation that rendered inevitable a decision as to which children, the older or the younger, were to be excluded from the school. In reply to the second paragraph, I may say that whenever in a matter of this kind the local authority and the managers agree as to the best selection of children to be excluded for this purpose, as is usually the case, the question in the second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question does not arise; when this is not the case, as unfortunately occurred in connection with the Garforth parochial school, the Board of Education may have to determine, under Article 53 of the Code, as to the reasonableness of the grounds on which children may be refused admission. Whether, apart from this, a question might arise under Section 7 (3) of the Education Act, 1902, would depend upon various circumstances in each case, and no general answer could properly be given to this point as raised in the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.

  "Limerick" Competitions.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he has been furnished with information showing that the newspaper competitions,

  171
  known as Limericks, are often so administered as to be little better than fraudulent lotteries; and does he now see his way to take any steps for the protection of the large number of unsuspecting persons who are in good faith supplying the funds for these competitions.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): The materials furnished to me tend to show that in some cases at least the prizes for Limericks are chosen haphazard. If so, the so-called competition is undoubtedly both a lottery within the statute and a fraud upon the competitors to whom it is represented that the discrimination will be exercised upon a basis of comparative merit. There is further the consideration whether the large sums subscribed are in fact distributed. The subject is under the consideration of the Commissioners of the Police, who are charged with the administration of the law and have full authority to obtain proper legal advice, and I would suggest that all further communications upon the subject should be addressed to them.

  Common Lands.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to any cases of the public losing the enjoyment of tracts of common land by reason of the purchase by lords of manors of neighbouring enclosed lands, house sites, and toft rights, carrying rights of common; whether, in any such oases, the public enjoyment of the commons has been protected and the commons secured as open spaces by the local authority undertaking the management of the commons and making regulations for the same; whether the bringing of commons under the regulation of the local authority has been impeded by any powers of veto of the lord of the manor; and, if so, whether the Board of Agriculture has taken any steps to secure to the public the enjoyment of the commons as open spaces, especially in the neighbourhood of large towns.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): We are not aware of any
  172
  case in which the public have lost the enjoyment of common lands by reason of the purchase by the lord of the manor of neighbouring enclosed lands carrying rights of common. The number of cases in which the lord of the manor has exercised his right of veto on proposals made by local authorities for the regulation and management of commons are not numerous, but neither in these cases nor in any other has the Board of Agriculture any power to take direct action with the object of preserving commons as open spaces.

  Scottish Procurators Fiscal.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether procurators fiscal in Scotland are allowed to carry on private business; and, if so, will the Government put an end to it, so that these public officials may be in an independent position and able to act with equal justice to all.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE,): As my right hon. friend has on a former occasion informed my hon. friend the question whether a procurator fiscal is entitled to carry on private practice or business depends on the terms of his commission. In every case where it is possible to do so, the settled policy has been to restrict the procurators fiscal entirely to their official work.

  Traction Engines on Scottish Roads.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, before the next session of Parliament, he will make inquiries as to the utility of requiring a third man with traction engines on roads in Scotland, seeing that for the last seven years this requirement has ceased in England.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I have received various representations on the subject which I propose to consider with a view to legislation when a suitable opportunity occurs.

  Melrose Asylum.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the last report of the medical superintendent of the district asylum at Melrose, for the border

  173
  counties of Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk, complaint is made that difficulties are found in procuring persons properly qualified to take care of the insane, and attention is directed to the number of changes that take place on the asylum staff because the warders and other employees have no prospect of receiving annuities when they retire incapacitated by their exacting duties; and, whether, seeing that similar complaints have often been made by the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland, he can see his way to undertaking legislation to confer the same sort of statutory power to award superannuation allowances as exists in the case of English county and borough asylums, Irish district asylums, and the Scottish royal asylums.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to by my hon. friend and the legislation he suggests shall be considered, but I am unable to give any definite undertaking.

  Education (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the widespread disappointment in Scotland at the failure to pass the Education (Scotland) Bill; and whether he will reintroduce the Bill early next session and ensure its passage.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Government shares deeply in this disappointment; and while no pledge can be given at this moment, it is certainly my hope to reintroduce an Education Bill next session, which I trust may pass into law.
  MR. GULLAND: Is it proposed to enact any of the provisions of the Bill by a minute of the Education Department?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have no present intention, but the matter is under consideration.

  Irish School Buildings.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the difficulties between the Treasury and the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland in respect to school buildings have been removed; if so, how long is it since they have been so removed; have building grants been sanctioned; if so,
  174
  to what amount, and how much has been advanced; in how many cases have managers been furnished with special plans that were to be prepared by the Board of Works; have any steps been taken to meet cases of urgency; if so, what were they: when were they taken; has there been delay in the cases of Edenderry (King's County) and Newbridge (Kildare County); if so, what is the cause of such delay; and, if matters connected with prospective school buildings are not in a satisfactory condition, would he consider the advisability of appointing a special architect for the purpose of disposing of such building arrears as may now exist.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): An agreement in this matter was arrived at on 30th April last, when it was arranged that the floor space allowance should be ten square feet per pupil and that the number of pupils to be provided for should be the mean between the average number on the rolls and the average attendance. One matter however, is still the subject of correspondence, namely, the provision of special rooms for practical instruction in science and cookery in certain classes of schools. The Commissioners have provisionally approved of the erection of new school-houses in 158 cases, 114 of which may be proceeded with if the managers submit special plans. So far, none of these 114 cases have reached the stage at which grants can be determined. The remaining forty-four cases must await the completion of the new standard official plans. In thirty-one cases sketch plans have been issued to managers wich the object of enabling them to have special plans prepared by their own architects. In two cases only have such special plans been received and these are at present under consideration. Precedence is being given to cases of urgency, and it is with the view of expediting these cases that the managers have been allowed to submit special plans. In neither of the cases specially referred to has there been avoidable delay. In the case of Edenderry, the manager's plans are under consideration, and in the case of Newbridge the manager has been invited to submit special plans which have not yet been received. The Government have no ground for assuming that matters

  175
  are progressing otherwise than satisfactorily or that there is any reason for appointing a special architect.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Can anything be done before the inclement season sets in?
  MR. BIRRELL: I hope so.

  Drainage of the Barrow.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Vice-Regal Commission on Arterial Drainage (Ireland) (1905–7) have confirmed the Report of the Allport Commission (1887) that the basin of the Upper Barrow suffered more from floods than any other part of, Ireland; is he aware that they also find that smaller sums than those hitherto estimated might be expended on that river with advantage, provided that they were devoted to the purpose of specific works forming part of a general and comprehensive scheme of improvement (page 9); and is anything being done to prepare a comprehensive scheme of drainage of the Barrow river basin or for such specific works on a smaller scale as are recommended by the said Commission.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have been asked to receive a deputation on the subject of the Barrow drainage in the course of the autumn, and have signified my willingness to discuss the matter with the influential committee which desires to put its views before the Government. In the meantime, I am afraid that I cannot with advantage add anything to my previous Answers on the subject.

  Longford Grazing Land Disputes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether on or about the 18th August last several organised attacks were made by large crowds upon grazing lands in the county of Longford and the cattle driven off, and the owners or persons in charge threatened; whether one of these attacks was conducted by the hon. Member for North Longford; and what proceedings, if any, have been or are to be taken for the vindication of the law and the protection of property in those particular cases.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that cattle were driven off several grazing farms in county Longford on 18th August. The question of taking proceedings against the offenders is under consideration, and it would therefore be undesirable to enter into details of the offences at present. An extra force of police has been sent to the locality for the prevention of further offences of the kind.

  Blake Estate, Connemara.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the price paid by the Congested Districts Board for the Blake property in Bunowen, in Connemara; whether he is aware that the holdings, about 100, on this estate are utterly uneconomic, consisting principally of rocks; whether he is aware that the reservation of the demesne lands by the landlord precludes the tenants from acquiring the only land that would improve the position of the tenants; and whether steps will at once be taken to prevent this reserved land being let to graziers and secured to the tenants.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have agreed to purchase 3,484 acres of land from Mr. Blake for £8,868. The demesne, consisting of 200, acres, is to be resold for £2,000. The balance of 3,284 acres is therefore being acquired for £0,868. Of this area 3,017 acres consist of tenanted land occupied by fifty-seven tenants, whose rents average £5 each. The remaining 267 acres will be used for enlarging some of the holdings, but unless the Board are able to purchase other untenanted land they will not be able to enlarge the majority of the holdings. The Board have no control over the lands retained by the owner.

  Dublin Revision Courts.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken since the 5th July last relative to the memorial addressed to the Lord-Lieutenant regarding the establishment of another revision court in the St. Stephen's Green Parliamentary division; whether, in view of the fact that over

  177
  1,000 claimants for votes in districts of that division outside the city have to travel from the county into the city I revision court, distances varying from three to six miles, in order to prove such claims, steps will be taken to establish another revision court in that portion of the division which is in the county of Dublin for the convenience of the large number of qualified electors there; and whether such steps will be taken to establish another revision court in time for the coming annual revision of voters lists.
  MR. BIRRELL: The memorial referred to has received careful consideration, and has been submitted to the law officers of the Crown who have advised that the Government have no power to make an Order establishing an additional revision court for the city of Dublin or any division of it. Legislation would apparently be necessary to enable the Government to comply with the prayer of the memorial.

  The Explosion at Lord Ashtown's House.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether he has any facts to communicate to the House with reference to the inquiry which he told the House was going on into the explosion which took place at Lord Ashtown's shooting lodge.
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir. The inquiry is going on, and the police are pursuing a great many chains of evidence, which we think may result in the satisfactory discovery of the perpetrator of this outrage; but it would not be convenient at this stage that I should make any statement to this House.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Inasmuch as Parliament will rise in a day or two, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state now whether, in view of the suspicious circumstances connected with this case, he will order a special inquiry, as was done in a similar ease with very satisfactory results in another part of Ireland quite recently?
  MR. BIRRLL: I have already intimated that the Government are fully alive to the powers they possess, both
  178
  under the Explosive Substances Act and otherwise, to direct an inquiry of the kind the hon. Member indicates, and I think it is quite possible that such an inquiry may result; but I am not in a position to say the Government are determined upon it at the present moment.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give us, before Parliament separates, some assurance upon this matter?
  MR. BIRRELL: I was going to say I hoped not, but I do not think I shall have time to give a positive assurance upon that question before Parliament rises; but I shall be able to communicate the decision of the Government to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Pending the result of the inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman see that Lord Ashtown does not leave the United Kingdom, as there is a very strong suspicion that he knows all about this matter?
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is there any truth in the suggestion that Lord Ashtown blew himself up?
  MR. BIRRELL: I was not aware he was blown up.

  Ballinabrackey Postman.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. James Bracken, of Ballinabrackey, was medically disqualified in May last through blood poisoning caused by an accident upon duty; whether, in spite of this and of the fact that he had performed twenty-six years full-time service, he has not yet been notified of any superannuation or compensation for the injury; and whether a decision will be given without delay.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Much time has been necessarily taken up with the inquiries which have had to be made in this case. The Postmaster-General is advised that the accident on duty referred to is not the cause of Bracken's retirement, which is medically certified to be due to "natural debility from old age." Bracken has not held an established appointment, and is therefore not eligible

  179
  for the award of a pension on retirement; but the question of his eligibility for a compassionate gratuity under the Superannuation Act, 1887, is under consideration; and a decision on this point will be given at as early a date as possible.

  Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and the Australian Tariff.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce that the new Australian tariff will cause serious loss of employment in numerous industries in this country; and whether he will consider the advisability of relieving the taxpayers of this country at the earliest possible moment from the expense they now incur in connection with the naval squadron specially maintained for the defence of Australia.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I am not aware whether or not the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce have made any statement of so general a kind. They have stated in a letter addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that great losses will be suffered by exporters from this country in respect of contracts already under execution by the enforcement of the new Australian tariff. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative, as an entirely different set of considerations are involved in the maintenance of the naval agreement with Australia and New Zealand.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the hon. Member for East Worcestershire or the Hon. Member for Dulwich as to the form of retaliation they would adopt?
  [No Answer was returned.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
WALTER EDWARD GUINNESS, Esq, commonly called the hon. Walter Edward Guinness, for the Borough of Bury St. Edmunds.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the
180
Amendments made by the Lords to the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill; that they do not insist on certain of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed; that they do not insist on certain other of their Amendments but propose Amendments in lieu thereof, to which they desire the concurrence of this House, and insist on certain other of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed and for which insistence they assign their reasons. That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Bill without Amendment; to one other of the Amendments with an Amendment, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and have disagreed to certain other of the Amendments, for which disagreement they assign their reasons.
That they have agreed to; Sea Fisheries (Scotland) (Application of Penalties) Bill; Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill; Judicature (Ireland) Bill; Inverness Royal Academy Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Bill, with an Amendment.
Public Health Bill; Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to; Qualification of Women (County and Brough Councils) Bill [Lords].
Amendment to; Factory and Workshop Bill [Lords]; Companies Bill [Lords]; Vaccination (Scotland) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships copies of the Reports from the Select Committees appointed by this House in the present session on; 1. Home Work; 2. Publications; together with the Proceedings of the Committees and Minutes of Evidence.
That they have agreed to; Council of India Bill, without Amendment.
Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, with Amendments.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords reasons for insisting on certain of their Amendments to the Bill to which this House has disagreed, and for

181
disagreeing to certain other of the Commons Amendments, and Lords Amendment to one of the Commons Amendments, and Lords further Amendments to the Bill to be printed. [Bill 331.]

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be printed. [Bill 332.]
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Lords Amendments to be printed. [Bill 333.]
HOME WORK; PUBLICATIONS.
Printed copies of Reports from Select Committees to be communicated.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 336.]

VICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,)said that in moving, as he now did, that the House should forthwith consider the Amendments of the Lords to the Commons Amendments of the Evicted Tenants Bill, he regretted that it was necessary for him to make a short statement in order that the House should know the view the Government took upon the present position. There was one point of supreme importance which immediately arose. The Lords adhered, with what he could only call grim pertinacity, to the Amendments inserted in that House at the instigation of Lord Robertson, the effect of which was that in no case whatsoever, be the circumstances what they might, could any new tenant be required to leave land under the compulsory powers of the Act if he should be a bona fide farmer cultivating his land. The result of that Amendment, if they agreed to it, would be that under no circumstances could compulsion be applied either at the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, or of the Judge, or of the Land Commission, to any new tenant who was able to show that he was at present within the description of a bona
182
fide farmer. That really meant, he was bound to say, the triumph of Lord Clanricarde. It was never contemplated by the Government that compulsory powers would be used for the purpose of turning out any bona fide farmer who was unwilling to accept the generous terms offered by the Bill, which were a farm of equal value, or, if he so chose, full compensation for the disturbance to which he would be subjected. But the Amendment, if it were insisted on, would remove altogether from whatever tribunal was appointed the power to consider a case of that kind. He admitted at once, from his point of view, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, that he deeply deplored that the House of Lords should insist upon an Amendment which would deprive the Bill, if ever it became an Act, of what would be its greatest value, viz., its pacificatory message to the people of Ireland. He knew it had been said that to secure the immunity of the planters and new tenants was the object of noble Lords. From the bottom of his heart he hoped that object would be obtained by the measures they had adopted. But though his interest in the Bill had largely gone, he was still advised by persons in whom he had every confidence that what was left of the Bill, if anything was left, would be of very considerable value, and would assist and accelerate what was one of the main objects, indeed the only object of the measure, viz., the reinstatement of a considerable number of evicted tenants to the land; a reinstatement, not necessarily to the land from which they were evicted, but to land procured under the compulsory powers of the Bill. He, therefore, yielded to superior force, but in no way did he submit to force of argument, believing as he did that the Bill as originally introduced, and as the Government proposed to amend it, would secure justice. They agreed that no new tenant should be compelled to leave his farm unless in the opinion, not only of two of the Commissioners, but of the Judge of the Land Commission who was a Judge of the High Court, that course could be taken without injustice being done. That, however, was not sufficient for the House of Lords, and he understood that at that period of the session it was no use persisting in the Commons Amendment if they did not wish the Bill to be destroyed. As he, for one, did

183
not wish that, and although, as he had said, its main interest was gone, he would advise the House not to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment. The Lords also had an Amendment in Clause 1 substituting for "full market value" the word they had introduced at the request of the Opposition, viz., "compensation," and by subsequent Amendments, which appeared in Lord Atkinson's name, "compensation" meant the kind of compensation awarded under the Lands Clauses Act, save except the 10 per cent. compensation under that Act for compulsory sale. Upon that they had generously not insisted as they were getting 12 per cent. bonus under the Act of 1903. In his opinion such a course would be disastrous. There was an appeal from the Estates Commissioners if they were wrong in valuing the land, and the Government were willing to insert words which would make it plain that the Commissioners were not to take land if by so doing damage would be done to the other land of the same owner. They thereby secured that the value of the land should be given, and, secondly, that the land should not be taken if the effect of taking it was seriously and injuriously to affect the value of the proprietor's remaining land. With that particular Amendment they felt they had come to the extreme limit, and they did not propose to agree to the insertion by the Lords of the word "compensation" in lieu of the word "value." There was another Amendment to which the Lords attached great importance in regard to which he would no longer contend with them. That was the introduction of the limit of 2,000 as the number of evicted tenants to be re-instated. He had argued that point until he was tired of it, and at that period of the session he felt physically unable to pursue it. At the very utmost there could be very few more than 2,000, and his objection to inserting the words "2,000" was that it would create an impression that they would have to live up to that number. But he had also pointed out that under this Bill—and this limit only applied to this Bill—they could not limit the number of evicted tenants who were restored voluntarily; the limit applied to those tenants who were to be restored on land compulsorily acquired under this Act, and there never would be anything like 2,000 restored on land com-
184
pulsorily acquired under this Act; and therefore, he had all along objected to those words. But the House of Lords insisted upon them, and he did not think it was worth while to carry the controversy any further. And therefore, if the Lords wished to have this 2,000 inserted, he proposed they should offer no objection. The next point of importance was with regard to the appeal. There, again, he did not want to repeat himself, as he had spoken so often on the subject. His view, however, upon the question of appeal was that in the matter of valuing the land they could have no better tribunal than the Estates Commissioners, and that to appeal from them to a Judge or lawyer was unnecessary. Everyone who knew anything about the habit of Judges in matters of land value knew perfectly well that they did not ascertain the value of the land for themselves but appointed a person to value it. The Judge did not bring his own mind to bear on the question but relied upon the report of the expert. He relied upon an expert, and, if he was a sensible man, he would always do it. Therefore, he had always thought that it was unnecessary to have an appeal. But he recognised what was felt. The same people had a great jealousy of the Land Commission. It was thought there would be two ideas of the value of the land in Ireland—the idea that prevailed in the atmoshere of the Land Commission Court and the idea that prevailed in the mind of the man in the street, and it was desirable to have, if possible, some outside element. The Government agreed to an appeal to Mr. Justice Wylie, who had raised the price of land in Ireland rather than lowered it. As a matter of fact, his decisions, as compared with those of his immediate predecessors, had been of a character which had tended to raise the price of land and the idea of the value of land. But for some blessed reason all parties, had combined in admiration of Mr. Justice Wylie. Both in the House of Lords and in that House every one said a fairer-minded man and a man more competent by past training to deal with the value of land did not exist. Therefore, he jumped at Mr. Justice Wylie, and his name had been inserted in the Bill. It was suggested that he ought to have outside assistance. The Government agreed, and it was now arranged that he should have two assessors to give

185
him the valuable aid and support which was given, he supposed, by the introduction of outside assistance of that kind into a Court of Justice. Therefore, he proposed now to insert in the Bill the words "sitting with two assessors." The Government could not agree to Lord Atkinson's Amendment. The noble Lord had withdrawn his former Amendment, but it had reappeared in another Amendment, equally lengthy, which he did not think the Treasury could agree to, and which certainly the Government were not disposed to agree to. Therefore, it must be understood that the Court of Appeal which alone the Government were willing to concede was the appeal to Mr. Justice Wylie, sitting with two assessors. The House of Lords had restored the clause reserving sporting rights to the owner if he desired to reserve them. The Government would concede that. Having done that, they had shown their desire to secure the passage of this Bill even in what he, at all events, would never deny was a mutilated form. With regard to the tenure of the Commissioners, the House of Lords, after striking out Clause 13, had restored it, in perfectly good faith, with meaningless words, in order that they might have further time to consider the question. The Government proposed that Clause 13 should be restored; and if the House wished the words inserted in the other House to remain in it, they had no objection though they appeared to be surplusage, and had only been introduced for the purpose of keeping the matter I open. He thought he had said all he need say upon the general statement; which he had to offer upon this Bill. He could only repeat that, being responsible for the condition of Ireland, he was very sorry that this occasion could not be taken to indicate a generous desire to let bygones be bygones in this matter.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords reasons for insisting on certain of their Amendments to which I this House has disagreed, and for disagreeing to certain other of the Commons Amendments, and Lords Amendment to one of the Commons Amendments and Lords further Amendments to the Bill be considered forthwith."—(Mr. Birrell.)
MR. WALTER LONGthought it would be felt by the House
186
to be a great convenience that the Chief Secretary should have stated the views of the Government in regard to the action of the House of Lords. He had listened with amazement to the remarks of the Chief Secretary. There had been many surprising statements made from the bench opposite during the passage of this Bill, but none more amazing than that with which the right hon. Gentleman had commenced his remarks; because he had told them, in the first place, that the meaning of the words inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords in regard to the sitting tenants was a triumph for Lord Clanricarde, and, in the second place, that this alteration destroyed what would have been a message of peace to Ireland. He had made it his business in the last few weeks to learn more about the existing conditions on Lord Clanricarde's estate, and he questioned whether the Chief Secretary, if he examined the circumstances for himself, would find that the effect of the Bill, so altered, upon Lord Clanricarde's estate would in any way justify the language he had used. Even if he was wrong in that belief, it would be little short of an absurdity if they were to forbid the insertion of words which were intended to make the Bill operate justly, because in one particular case they would have an effect contrary to what was desired by the Government and some other Members of the House. It was interesting to remember that during the passage of this Bill through its earlier stages they heard nothing about the definite declaration which had fallen from the Chief Secretary to-day, that it never was the intention of the Government to turn out the sitting tenants except under certain limitations. He appealed to those who took part in the debates upon this subject whether it was not entirely from his side of the House that the case of the sitting tenants had been presented, and whether they were not, in consequence, opposed to the attacks of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who declared that for the first time the Unionist Party in Ireland had become the champions of the tenants. He thought the Chief Secretary gave a very inaccurate description of what had taken place when he asked the House to accept it from him that the Government had never intended to disturb the sitting tenant. When the right hon. Gentleman said this change

187
entirely altered the Bill and deprived him of any interest in it, he was still more amazed. The right hon. Gentleman told them it was not proposed to interfere with the sitting tenants unless it could be done without injustice. It depended upon what was meant by "without injustice." They had frequently been told that they must not regard this question of restoring the evicted tenants from the commercial or even from the agricultural point of view, but that they must remember that these men had an affection for the land upon which they once lived. Were they then to believe this of men who were evicted twenty-five years ago, and not believe it of the men who had been living on the land since that time? If the existence of this sentiment on the part of the evicted tenants justified this extraordinary and unprecedented action on the part of Parliament in order to help them, did not the existence of a similar sentiment on the part of the sitting tenants justify an Amendment to protect men who had done their duty in the face of every difficulty, and whose only fault in ninety-nine cases out of 100 was that they had stood against local disorder, had refused to be intimidated, and had carried on their work, not only to their own profit, but to the general good of the community of the district? [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen who dissented had not taken the trouble to make themselves acquainted with the Amendment. This Amendment would only protect men if they were bona fide) farmers carrying on their business according to the principles of good husbandry. Did the Chief Secretary in his heart believe that to remove them by force, whatever the money compensation or grant of other land might be, was to send to Ireland as a whole anything like a message of peace? It was ten times more likely to create fresh difficulties. He was glad the Chief Secretary had made up his mind, after all, not to object to this Amendment. There was one further word he wished to say. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that it was impossible to deal with these cases without compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman could under existing powers and without compulsion deal with these cases in which a man, without injustice to him, could be removed. He did not think that on the benches around him they had any cause to be ashamed of the
188
part they had taken in fighting for justice to be done to sitting tenants, and he for one rejoiced that the House of Lords had stood up for this Amendment, which would prevent what would have been an act of gross unfairness to men who had fearlessly done their duty. In regard to the next Amendment the right hon. Gentleman told them that the Government had yielded to force and not to argument. The right hon. Gentleman was enjoying a fresh experience. It was one which the Opposition had enjoyed for nearly two years. In the time which the right hon. Gentleman had before him—and he hoped it would not only be a long time but a prosperous and successful time for himself—he would be better able to appreciate the feelings of those who sat opposite to him than he had been during the period when he had been able to use force while the Opposition had been obliged to content themselves with presenting arguments. The next Amendment was for the substitution of the word "compensation" for the words "market value." He regretted that the Chief Secretary had not been aisle to accept the word "compensation," and to limit the further Amendment in regard to the way in which compensation was arrived at. There was some ambiguity about the words "market value." There was no precedent for taking land compulsorily for a purpose with which the owner was not immediately connected, without paying the full value for it. He regretted that the Chief Secretary insisted upon words which he thought he himself had admitted were not as fully satisfactory and expressive as he would like, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman could have got what he desired with the word "compensation" if he had limited that part of the Amendment to which he really objected, namely, the use of the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act in arriving at the compensation to be given. Then there was the 2,000 limit. He could not understand why the Amendment putting a limit to the number of evicted tenants to be restored was not accepted when it was first proposed. They had been assured times out of number that the Government did not intend to reinstate more than the number expressed in that limitation. The Commissioners he believed would be in a stronger position if they were able to say that

189
the statute limited the number to be restored under it. He could not see that it would in any way increase the difficulties of their task, on the contrary, it would simplify it, and would give, what, Parliament intended, the right to say that this Bill was intended for the limited purpose of restoring a particular number of selected tenants. As to sporting rights, the Chief Secretary consented to the change, therefore that did not call for any comment. With regard to the tenure of the Commissioners, he had already argued the case, and he need not argue it any further. He adhered to the views he had expressed in regard to the change of time and the manner in which the change was being made, and in reference to the fact that it was being attempted to make County Court Judges of men who in the performance of their duties were subject to the control of the Lord-Lieutenant. The other question was that of appeal. The Chief Secretary had said perfectly truly that in all quarters there was but one expression of opinion in regard to Mr. Justice Wylie. Unlike many of his hon. and right hon. friends, he had not the pleasure of the personal acquaintance of Mr. Justice Wylie, but he had heard a great deal about the work he had done, and about what he was considered to be, previous to his appointment to his office. He believed that Mr. Justice Wylie was a man who was very likely to deal fairly with all cases that came before him, to give the fairest consideration to the claims of both sides, and to deal with the difficult question of the valuation of land in a spirit of complete justice to all concerned, and with complete regard to all the various interests. But in order to do full justice all round the appeal ought to be to an independent tribunal. If the appeal was to be effective and complete it should be to an absolutely fresh tribunal, and not to a member of the very body whose action was to come under review. Those were the reasons which had led them to fight for some such Court of Appeal as was to be found in the Amendment which the Lords had insisted upon. He did not believe that the difficulties which this Bill sought to remove really lay at the root of Irish discontent and trouble, and it could not be justly described as a message of peace to Ireland. He admitted that there were difficulties in connection with the re-
190
instatement of the evicted tenants which should be removed. He could not, however, believe that when they were all so near a common agreement, that any responsible body of men who had the interests of sound and fair legislation at heart would at the eleventh hour offer any violent opposition to a scheme of appeal which gave a second hearing to those who were aggrieved and provided machinery of a character against I which not one word could be said. This machinery would enable anybody who thought an injustice had been done to them to have their case reheard.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he felt it his duty to rise at once and give expression to the extreme concern, with which he had heard the statement made by the Chief Secretary. It was evident from that statement that whether the Bill was passed into law or whether it was not the Government would fail to carry out that promise upon which the Irish people had been relying for so long, and upon the realisation of which, in his judgment, the hopes and the welfare of Ireland in the immediate future depended He desired at once to correct a misapprehension which might perhaps follow from one of the phrases used by the Chief Secretary, where he said that he had made these concessions in deference to advice tendered to him. He wished to say that he tendered no such advice to him nor had any of his colleagues. Whatever quarter the advice came it had not come from the Nationalist representatives of Ireland. His advice was exactly of an opposite character and he protested as strongly as it was possible for him to do against the acceptance of those Amendments of the Lords to which he would allude in a moment. Of course every man understood the difficulties of the position of the Government. Every fair man would give the Chief Secretary full credit for having intended to fulfil his promise to Ireland. His Bill as introduced was in fulfilment of that promise. But this Bill if passed—and as to that he did not know—would not be a fulfilment of that promise held out to Ireland, and certainly would not come as a message of peace, or have any chance of settling the evicted tenants question. He had not risen, however, for the purpose of attacking the Government, because he realised their

191
difficulties and the desire of the Chief Secretary to go as far as he could. He had risen for the purpose of endeavouring to point some moral to this transaction; first for the benefit of the English Members, and, secondly, for the benefit of Ireland. He would, in a few sentences, state what the situation really was with reference to this Bill, and what had been the action of the landlord party in this House and in the House of Lords. The Land Act of 1903 was carried because a specific promise was given to the representatives of the tenants—at the Land Conference first of all, and subsequently in the House—as an essential condition of the truce of peace between the two contending parties that the evicted tenants would be speedily restored to their holdings. Without that promise the Land Conference would not have been possible, and the Land Act of 1903 would never have been passed. Four years had passed since the Act was carried, and yet the promise had not been fulfilled. He knew hon. Members were fond of reminding the House that 1,000 evicted tenants had been restored owing to the voluntary operation of the Act of 1903. That was true, but the question had not been settled. The worst cases, like that of the Clanricarde estate, had not been settled, and so long as they remained unsettled the open sore could not be closed, and the land war in Ireland was not only not settled, but there appeared no human possibility of its being settled. How could it? Lord Clanricarde was a man who would not sell. He would not restore the tenants. Application after application had been made to him, sometimes direct to him and sometimes to his agent; and he had not replied except with the one statement that he would not extend clemency to those evicted tenants. Now the Government had introduced a Bill which, if carried into law, as they conceived, would have enabled cases of this kind to be settled, and in the course of a few months, without any injustice being done to anybody—not only was the landlord to be paid the full value but the new tenants and planters were to get full compensation in money for any injury that might be done to them—this vexed question would be settled. The landlord party in this House and in the House of Lords had ripped that up. They had done it deliberately. His opinion
192
was that the action of the House of Lords and the landlord party in this House had been animated by the motive of wishing to see the Chief Secretary embroiled in the coming winter in trouble and turmoil in Ireland. That was his opinion, and he had no hesitation in expressing it. All who were capable of thinking on this subject and who had had experience of the landlords were aware that nothing could be more fatal to the hopes of Ireland in the coming months than the wrecking of this Bill. They had done it deliberately. Let him explain the method that they had adopted. First of all, he would take the question of price. The Bill as originally introduced provided that the landlord whose land was to be taken was to get a fair price for his land. One would have thought that that would have satisfied everybody, but in deference to the Opposition in this House the Government made a concession, and instead of a fair price they put in the words "the fair market value," which those acquainted with these matters knew was not exactly the same thing. At the time those words were accepted he regretted it. Then the Bill went to the other House where the words "a fair market value" were struck out and the word "compensation" was inserted instead. The Lords also introduced an Amendment bringing the Lands Clauses Act into the consideration of the fine. The cool request of these landlords was that they should get first of all the full market value of the land, secondly that they should have the 12 per cent. bonus, and in addition to that their original demand was 10 per cent. bonus for compulsion, severance and so forth—an attempt which, in his opinion, was absolute robbery on the part of these people. Let the House mark the malice of it. Of course a provision of that kind would stop the working of the Bill altogether, because when the landlord was bought out of this land the evicted tenant would be put in as a purchaser, and his instalments by way of repayment of interest and principal on the purchase money would, under those circumstances, be so high that it would be utterly impossible for him to pay them. In that way the question of price in the Bill would be so worked as to make the measure absolutely inoperative. What was the next thing they did? They said, "We must have a tribunal to our liking to fix the price.'

193
They were not content with the Estates Commissioners, who were all, as far as he knew, appointed by a Unionist Government, and as to two of them he had heard it stated, without contradiction, they were Unionists in politics. Not content with a tribunal of that kind, they now came forward and asked that there should be an appeal, an elaborate system of appeal, not on value only, but on everything; not only on price but on policy. That was the first demand. They were to have an appeal on the the question whether the compulsory powers were ever to be put into operation in any case at all. The appeal they still demanded was an appeal to a rota of Judges of the King's Bench Division; and why? He was the last man in the world to make anything in the nature of an attack upon the Judges, but the majority of these men were appointed for political services and had been by tradition connected with the landlord party. Naturally the landlords demanded an appeal to them. The Government offered them an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner. He did not know whether that official was a Home Ruler or not, but he certainly was not a Catholic, and he could not be called a tenant's man. He had never heard a word of suspicion directed against the Judicial Commissioner's impartiality, and yet the landlords were afraid to trust him, because his traditions had not been associated with the landlord patty in Ireland. The landlords asked for this increased price, for compensation, and also for their own tribunal to carry it into effect. He would just like to show the recklessness, the harshness, and the unscrupulousness of these men. Clause 13 provided that the two Estates Commissioners who held their office at pleasure should have security of tenure given to them, so that they would be in as good a position as the other Commissioner. They had all heard the protest repeated again and again in this House against the iniquity of this distinction. What had happened? Since the measure was last discussed in this House some ingenious lawyer had discovered that the Act of 1903 repealed the Act of 1901 under which this Commissioner had security of tenure—this referred to Mr. Wrench who had been avowed as the friend of the landlords by more than one Unionist Member. The very moment they found that
194
Mr. Wrench's tenure was not secure they turned round in the Lords and said, "This is a most admirable provision; we will give security to the whole three." He mentioned that Fact just to show the insincerity of the whole transaction. They made a bitter fight in this House on that very point, but when they found it was necessary to concede it in the interests of Mr. Wrench they at once gave it up. The subject of the planters was the most serious of all these matters. So long as the planters in places like the Clanricarde estate were left in possession there could be no such thing as peace or an end to the land war in Ireland. In that case it would be impossible to provide for the tenants elsewhere, because there was no untenanted land available, and the only way in which the Clanricarde estate could be dealt with was by giving the planters compensation and restoring the evicted tenants to their holdings. He did not believe, from the information he had received, that in this case the planters themselves would raise any very great objection. Hon. Members above the gangway would have them believe that they had taken this action in the interest of the planters. What was certain was that the inevitable and immediate effect of their action would be that the whole force of public opinion would be directed against those planters. He ventured to say that if the planters on the Clanricarde estate were consulted, they would think that those were not their friends but their enemies who were standing in the way of a peaceful and honourable settlement of this question. He for his part desired to draw this moral—unfortunately it was a moral which he and his friends had had to draw over and over again in his experience during the last quarter of a century in this House—if Ireland was peaceful and trustful, the Unionist Party was always obdurate. Did this House think that the House of Lords representing the landlord party would dare to deal with this Bill in the way it had done if there was a strong and menacing agitation afoot in Ireland at the present time? They would do nothing of the kind. They would deal with this Bill as they had dealt with other Bills under these circumstances. The moral for Ireland was that if she wanted to get next session land legislation, if she desired to see the evicted tenants reinstated, if she

195
desired to see the black spot of the Clanricarde estate and other similar spots wiped out in Ireland, if she desired to see the Land Act of 1903 amended, as all moderate and reasonable men admitted it should be amended in the near future—if she desired all these things, she would have to close up her ranks and make her movement sufficiently strong and menacing to overcome both the hon. Members above the gangway and the House of Lords. He asked the House not to imagine that it was a pleasure to him to say these things. He was deeply disappointed. He naturally thought that they would have had a settlement of the question through this Bill. He had been so much through the political trouble, and he had seen so much of the suffering entailed upon the agricultural class during the last twenty-five years, that he shrank from the prospect of fresh trouble. But one thing was certain. Those suffering tenants who for twenty years had been waiting on the roadside for a chance of going back into their old homes, would not submit with patience to their permanent exclusion in the settlement of the land question, and in any action they took they undoubtedly would have the sympathy and support of the mass of their fellow countrymen behind them. It might be taken for granted that this Bill now, whether it passed or not, could not settle the question. He said he would not attack the Government, and he had not done so. He was certain that the Government were honestly desirous of settling the question. They had been thwarted by that power which stood between British Radicals and reform just as it stood between the Nationalists and reform in Ireland. British Members must not be surprised if Nationalists showed impatience when again they were thrown back from the prospect of redress and reform. He supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would now proceed to deal separately with the Amendments. He would himself take no further part in the discussion. He would not discuss with the right hon. Gentleman or with hon. Members above the gangway the proposals of the remaining Amendments. It was sufficient for him to know that the Bill if it passed—though he did not say it was worthless, for there was enshrined in the Bill the great principle of compulsory acquisition of untenanted land—would not fulfil the object for which it
196
was introduced. It would not reinstate the evicted tenants, and therefore, from that point of view, it would be a failure. He deeply regretted it, and he trusted. that the lesson would not be lost on fair-minded men in this country, and he was certain that the lesson would not be lost on the Irish people.
MR. A. J. BALFOURregretted that the hon. Gentleman did not permit the closing scene of this drama; to draw to a termination without making to a wearied and somewhat somnolent House of Commons a speech which, in his opinion, was likely to do great harm to, the cause the hon. Gentleman had at heart. For what was his main charge against the House of Lords and what he called the landlord party? His main charge was that they were anxious to have a disturbed Ireland in the winter in order to give a great deal of trouble to the right hon. Gentleman opposite on whose shoulders now rested the always serious burden of Irish government. A few things suggested themselves to his mind in connection with this charge. He took it that the owners of land in Ireland had most to suffer from agrarian disturbance. It was against them that the powerful engines of calumny and intimidation were to be directed; and that in order to make the task of the Chief Secretary for the time being more difficult than it otherwise would be they should give anything in the nature of an excuse to those who controlled in Ireland the forces of disorder was a paradox so wild and absurd that he was amazed the hon. Member should have made it. He had listened with attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and—though he might misinterpret its meaning—the only interpretation that he could put on his words was a desire to see a period of disorder in Ireland in order that legislation of the kind he desired might be got through both Houses without difficulty. That was a direct incitement to disorder in Ireland, a plain indication to the people of Ireland of a motive to break the law and to indulge in wild and reckless agitation. Yet the same hon. member who put forward these inducements to his countrymen to break the law in Ireland accused the Irish landlords in the same speech of harbouring a policy so suicidal as that of producing a state of disorder to their own injury and to the embarrassment of the

197
Chief Secretary. That these two propositions should appear in the same speech was surely the height of rhetorical inconsistency. What was the hon. Member's charge? He did not dwell upon his statements as to the price of the land. The Chief Secretary stated that the Peers desired to see not merely the 10 per cent. which had very commonly been given under the Lands Clauses Act to those from whom land was taken compulsorily, but that they desired 12 per cent. in addition from the bonus. He did not believe that any Court would give both 12 and 10 per cent., and it was folly to add the two sums together and say that the Irish landlords wanted 22 per cent. What they desired was to get a fair price for their land. Personally he had no objection to the scheme which the House owed to the ingenuity of the hon. Member in charge of the English Land Bill; but everyone would admit that if they took a man's land against his will they must regard him as a man who was suffering from a transaction in which he did not desire to be a party. That point ought always to be considered. It was folly to suppose, therefore, that any section of opinion in the House of Lords desired to see 10 and 12 per cent. added to the value of the land. Besides, that provision was now out of the Bill, and when the hon. Member dragged it into his speech he obviously did so for no other purpose except to create prejudice and excite animosity.
Mr. J. REDMONDsaid he had stated that the provision had been taken out of the Bill, but he was dealing with the original demands pressed in the House of Lords. The provision was only given up two days ago.
MR. BIRRELL: They were both in the original Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, at any rate, the transaction was over, and the provision was given up in the amended Bill. Next the hon. Member gave a position of prominence to the Clanricarde estate. The hon. Member spoke as if it were impossible in any circumstances to settle the case of the evicted tenants and the Plan of Campaign estates except by the Bill as it left the House. But almost all the Plan of Campaign estates had been settled
198
without this Bill. The tenants had been there for 20 years; they were bona fide cultivators, and they were as likely to be at least as much attached to their holdings as the men who left them twenty years ago. When the hon. Member told the House, therefore, that the result of the Amendment would be to prevent these tenants from being turned out unless through the action of what he euphemistically called "the force of public opinion," he thought that he took upon himself a very great responsibility. Everyone knew how that phrase would be interpreted in Ireland, and the Chief Secretary knew how it would be interpreted there. In the language of Irish controversial politics it was capable only of one interpretation; and that interpretation was that life should be made so intolerable to these tenants that, rather than remain in their holdings which they had occupied for twenty years, upon which they had roared their children and become prosperous under the agrarian conditions that prevailed, they would be ready to accept any excuse or compensation in order to got away. It was a very serious thing that words of that kind should be uttered in the House by a person in the position of the Leader of the Irish Party. They would be reported in the news papers—and they were intended to be reported in Ireland—and the advice coming from one in the position of the hon. Member in Ireland, as well as in the House of Commons, a Member of such prominence and importance, it was not likely to fall on deaf ears, nor was the seed he had endeavoured to sow likely to fall on stony ground. What was the view of settling the Irish difficulty in which the hon. Member and the Chief Secretary were agreed? They seemed to think that peace was to be attained in Ireland by turning out the men who were bona fide cultivators of their land, who were associated and had been long associated with the land and the district, and by putting others in their places. He did not know that any one had found that panacea for Irish ills which was going to give them peace in that island; but that peace ought to or could be bought at that price seemed to him to be absolutely incredible. Granted, what had never been proved, that these evicted tenants were evicted unjustly, granted that there was in their case

199
suffering and wrong which were to be compensated, how were they to compensate that suffering and to diminish that wrong by inflicting new suffering and new wrong? If they were to reach that great and desirable consummation of peace only by following there devious, crooked, and unjustifiable paths, then he did not believe that peace was attainable at all. Let the House at all events in rectifying one evil not create another greater and less justifiable; so only could they hope that some permanent alleviation could be brought to the ills of that country. There was another point that occurred to him in connection with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member admitted at the end of his speech that this Bill was not altogether without some kernel of good, and he found it in the principle of the compulsory appropriation of untenanted land for the purpose of enlarging holdings. It was worth while reminding the House that this was in direct and explicit contradiction of the principle formulated over and over again from the bench opposite with reference to the justification in respect of compulsory purchase. It would be remembered that the Opposition had urged many times that the proper way to deal with small holdings in England was to give the option of purchase to the small holder. The Government replied that it was contrary to the fundamental principles of the party to which they belonged to take land compulsorily from one person in order to hand it over to another. That was the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It was the principle which the hon. Baronet the Member for South Somersetshire laid down on the Third Reading, and it was their justification for the rejection of purchase in the English Bill. But they had now the assertion of the hon. Member that the one thing he saw valuable in the Bill was this very principle of taking land compulsorily from A in order to give it compulsorily to B.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman could not go back upon the principle of the Act of 1903.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not understand what he said. He was saying nothing about the Act of 1903.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that compulsion was involved in the Act of 1903. Everybody agreed that compulsion under the Act of 1903 was involved, if the land could not be transferred from the landlords to the tenants under the voluntary provisions. Parliament would not go back on that.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he was not aware that there was any compulsion in that Act.
MR. BIRRELL: If only half the laud were sold voluntarily, do you think you could stop there?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the Act of 1903 involved compulsion, then clearly the hon. and learned. Member for Waterford was wrong in saying that this Bill for the first time introduced the principle of compulsion. On the main principles of this measure there was no conflict between the two Houses, and he did not believe that by compulsorily turning out one set of bona fide tenants to put in another set the Government were going to conduce to the peace of Ireland. But such as it was, the Bill seemed to have every prospect of passing in a form which would do all that such a Bill could do. He never took the view of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that this was a final message of peace that would settle the long standing difficulties of the agrarian question.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I did not say that. What I said was that it would settle the evicted tenants question.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had contended that the evicted tenants question alone stood in the way of the final settlement of the land question. The real fact was that the Bill now retained any virtue that it ever had; and while he did not believe that it would have had all the excellent effects imagined by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he did not believe that whatever merits it had had been diminished by the modifications introduced by the Lords. He desired, therefore, that it should be added to the Statute Book, and there should be no difficulty in passing it in the shape suggested by the Chief Secretary.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that when the question was put from the Chair it was not the intention of the Irish Party to divide against it. They did not intend to accept any responsibility for the Bill in the form in which it had come down to the House of Commons, but to wash their hands of it There were many observations in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which invited reply, but he would not go through the speech as a whole. He, however, had remarked that the right hon. Gentleman was not quite happy in the political situation produced by the Amendments made in the Bill in another place. He might be tempted to dwell on the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman had made between the compulsory taking of land in England and Ireland. The compulsory taking of land in England would be a very simple matter if only it was taken under the same conditions as were proposed in Ireland—10 per cent. under the Lauds Clauses Consolidated Act, and 12 per cent. on the purchase money by way of bonus. He was sure that the landlords of England and Scotland would be willing to sell their land on such favourable conditions. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to dwell on the idea that the Irish Party attributed a certain amount of selfishness on the part of the House of Lords in dealing with this question. But would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the landlords of Ireland should have in selling their land to the tenants 22 per cent. more than its value? That was admitted by the noble and learned Lord who proposed the Amendment in another place, and that a Court of Law would have had to give the landlords that 10 per cent. if the Amendment had remained in the Bill. And that was the House which boasted of its freedom from the ordinary selfishness of mankind! It was noteworthy that the two important Amendments most damaging and sinister in their effect on the tenants should have been proposed in the House of Lords by two noble Lords who he had always supposed had been sent to the Upper House not for the purpose of indulging in political controversy but to exercise judicial functions. He would come to the root of the situation. What did it mean? The Leader of the Opposition, backing up the House of Lords, had
202
taken up the case of Lord Clanricarde. He was not astonished at the House of Lords' doing so, but he was astonished at the right hon Gentleman's doing so. And he was also astonished at the action of the right hon. Member for South Dublin. When the Chief Secretary stated at the beginning of the session that it was his intention to bring in legislation if necessary to deal with the case of Lord Clanricarde, the right hon. Member for South Dublin actually gave him his blessing. But he was not ashamed now to eat his own words and back up the House of Lords in supporting the action of Lord Clanricarde.
MR. WALTER LONG: I did nothing of the kind.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that he did not intimate at the time that he would raise no objection to dealing with Lord Clanricarde? The right hon. Gentleman could not deny what was on record and within the recollection of hon. Members. And the Chief Secretary said he was agreeably surprised at the favourable attitude the right hon. Gentleman took up with regard to Lord Clanricarde. He was surprised also at the language used by the Leader of the Opposition, for he remembered that in the stormy days in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman used the words, "On whichever side the responsibility rests of having made a hell upon earth on the Clanricarde Estates." Everybody who heard the right hon. Gentleman knew that he intended by these words as much condemnation of the unreasonableness and selfishness of Lord Clanricarde as of the share which the national organisation bore in those transactions. The Loader of the Opposition now set up as a defender of Lord Clanricarde.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said nothing for or against Lord Clanricarde.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not say so. He was too acute and skilful a Parliamentarian to say so, but what he wanted the House to understand was that the Clanricarde estate was the kernel of the situation. What was the real meaning of the changes made in the Bill by the House of Lords? It

203
would be a waste of time to denounce Lord Clanricarde. They all knew his character as a landlord. There were 120 evicted tenants on Lord Clanricarde's estate whose holdings were in the hands of planters. There was no spot in Ireland which had been the scene of so much disturbance as the Clanricarde estate. There was scarcely an acre upon it that was not wet with human blood; and whole families were kept from starvation by the help of people as poor as themselves. The right hon. Gentleman actually said that the love of these people for the cottages in which they were born and in which their forefathers were born, from which they were evicted, frequently at the cost of blood and terrible resistance, was to be put upon the same level with that of the men who came from the North of Ireland with their lives in their hands to take possession of the homes of these people! The suggestion was grotesque. Here were these 120 tenants with regard to whom they were told that if they did not get back their old holdings they could not get other holdings in the neighbourhood because there were no other holdings to be obtained. The Clanricarde estate was the greatest poison spot in the country, and the House of Lords in their anxiety for the peace of Ireland had thrown them this message of war—that those people who had waited, twenty-five years and more, to be reinstated were now to be deprived of their homes altogether. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be quite happy in this matter, but he had had the parliamentary courage to attempt to throw on the hon. and learned Member for Waterford the responsibility for all the disorder that might arise in consequence of the action of the House of Lords. But the House of Lords could not get rid of their responsibility in this way.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords reasons for insisting on certain of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed, and for disagreeing to certain other of the Commons Amendments, and Lords Amendment to one of the Commons Amendments, and Lords further Amendments to the Bill, considered.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out 'of the laud.' "
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out 'the fair market value thereof and insert 'the compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner being deprived thereof,' "
Disagreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In line 10, after 'may' insert 'subject to the provisions as to the appeal contained in this Act,"
Agreed to.
Lords' Amendment in page 2, line 4.
Agreed to.
On Lords Amendment in page 2, line 15, and also in lines 16 to 21:—
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said some slight confusion had got into the Bill owing to Amendments and cross Amendments, and if this Lords Amendment was accepted as it stood that confusion would remain. He proposed that the House instead of accepting it should insist on the Commons Amendment, page 2, line 9, substituting May for January as a concession to the other House, and should agree to the following proviso instead of the old subsection—
"Provided that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farm in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Amendment the Government now proposed was one which did not in any way alter the sense of Subsection. 3, of Clause 1, and he understood that no Amendment could be made to Lords Amendments unless they did alter the sense.
MR. BOWLESasked whether it was competent for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to move an Amendment not on the Paper.
MR. SPEAKERsaid it was competent for the right hon. and learned Member to move to disagree with the Lords Amendment and to move to amend the Bill in such a way as to meet the object of the Lords Amendment.
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
Question "That this House doth insist on its Amendment in page 2, line 19, to substitute 'May' for 'January,'" put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of Subsection 3 to insert the words 'provided that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farm in accordance with the proper methods of husbandry."—(Mr. Cherry.)
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment in page 2, lines 16 to 21—Disagreed to.
Lords Amendments in page 3, line 3, line 11, and lines 17 and 18—
Disagreed to.
The Lords agree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 3, line 23, with the following Amendment:
"To leave out the words 'the purchase money shall within the prescribed time' and insert the words 'amount of the compensation shall within six months after the expiration of of the time limited for the presentation of petitions.' "
MR. CHERRY: We agree to that, subject to the substitution of the words "purchase money" for the words "amount of compensation."
MR. LONGsaid he did not regard the substitution of the words proposed by the Government as a satisfactory way of carrying out the object of the Chief Secretary. But he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
Lords Amendment amended, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment in lieu of their Amendment in page 3, line 30—
"To leave out from 'thereon' to the end of the Subsection (7) and insert new subsections (8) and (9)."
MR. BIRRELL MR. BIRRELL moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment. The only thing he proposed to do was to amend the Commons' Amendment, on page 3, line 4, by omitting certain words and inserting other words.
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
MR. BIRRELL MR. BIRRELL moved to omit from the line of the Commons Amendment the words "hear in the prescribed manner," and to insert the words, "with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors, nominated by him for the purpose, hear."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. BIRRELL MR. BIRRELL moved, in the 10th line of the Commons Amendment, to insert after "1881," "other then the power to direct a valuer to report."
Amendment agreed to.
Commons Amendments in page 3, line 34, and page 4, line 4, to which the Lords has disagreed—
Insisted on.
Lords Amendment in page 5, line 5—
Disagreed to.
Commons Amendments in page 5, line G, and lines 7 and 8, to which the Lords disagreed—
Insisted on.
Lords Amendments in page 5, line 26, and line 32—
Disagreed to.
Lords Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 6—
Agreed to.
On the Lords Amendment to Clause 13, inserting after "shall" in page 6, line 39 "from and after the passing of this Act":—
MR. BIRRELLsaid these words had only been put in by the House of Lords with a desire to keep the question open. The words were very undesirable, and, therefore, he moved to disagree.
Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
MR. CHERRY MR. CHERRY moved, in page 5, clause 6, lines 34 to 36, to leave out the words "The owners of property so as to diminish the value thereof as little as possible," and to insert "Any other property of the owner so as not to diminish the value thereof."
Amendment agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, and for insisting upon certain of the Commons Amendments to which the Lords disagree.
Committee nominated of,—Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Birrell, and Mr. Solicitor-General.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Birrell.)

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,),in moving that the Lords' Amendments to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill be considered forthwith, said that there were a larger number of Amendments for consideration than they might have reasonably expected to receive from their Lordships. They fell, roughly, into three classes: First of all, those which were drafting or explanatory, or which had been accepted by the Government in the other place, and in respect of all of which, of course, he should move that the House do agree. The second class were either nonsensical or mischievous, sometimes both, and sometimes it was difficult to tell which, and that class, of course, they would have to scrutinise carefully. They might accept those which were mischievous in intention but nonsensical in effect, so long as they were quite sure that they were nonsensical. But they would have to eliminate those with were mischievous in effect as well as intention. Then there was a third, and he was happy to say a smaller class, the Amendments which appeared to be pure wrecking Amendments in intention, and destructive in effect. These Amend-
208
ments he would ask the House to reject wholly. The Government had introduced, adhered to, and carried through a Bill which was very moderate in method, though he believed very effective in machinery. In nicely balanced machinery like this, any rough or inconsiderate handling might throw all the gear out of order. He had tried, during the progress of the Bill through Committee, and on the Report Stage in the House, and even in another place, to meet all reasonable objections, and even to meet what seemed to him to be somewhat unreasonable fears, from whatever quarter they came; but it was impossible, at this stage, to shift the whole design of the Bill from the lines on which it had been laid down. They had been bidden by what might be called the landlord party in the other House to regard them as their allies in this matter. He saw on the Amendments before him no trace of an alliance. If these Amendments were the operation of an enemy he would call them fair fighting, but if they were the manœuvres of allies, he would be inclined to say that they seemed to him like treachery. In any event, the Government, having produced a measure which they believed to be just to all, and which in their view was the minimum requisite to meet the necessities of the case, could not associate themselves with or be responsible for a Bill which fell short of what they regarded as those necessities. Nor did they intend to associate themselves with a Bill which would be both unworthy and unworkable. He, personally, would sooner lose the Bill than offer what he would know to be a sham to those for whom it was intended. Therefore, the House would understand that the Amendments with which he would ask them to disagree were those which in his opinion were fatal to the Bill. He should be prepared to deal with each of the Amendments in detail, and he hoped they might escape discussion on those with which he was prepared to agree. Ten of the Lords Amendments he would ask the House to amend; eighteen he would ask the House to agree with: and thirty-three he proposed to ask the House to disagree with.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill be considered forthwith."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
MR. CHAPLINsaid he had hoard with much regret some of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. Hitherto they had endeavoured, on that side of the House at all events, to do their utmost to secure that the Bills hould be conducted without recrimination and without unnecessary differences with the other side, and, at all events, should in the spirit and with the intention of conciliation, and with the desire of arriving at a satisfactory result. He was quite unable to perceive in reference to what had occurred in another place that there was the slightest justification of any sort or kind for many of the epithets which the right hon. Gentleman had hurled at the heads of the other House. The right hon. Gentleman, if he had desired to secure that which he declared was the intention of many of the Amendments, namely, to wreck it and to bring about its failure, could not have adopted a better course to ensure that effect. Never did he recollect in the House of Commons a speech more unfortunate for the occasion, or more calculated to throw difficulties in the way of the success of the measure, which, he frankly admitted, the right hon. gentleman had conducted with great skill and in a business spirit—a spirit which he might have shown towards another place; but, he repeated, if the right hon. Gentleman had desired to bring about the result he pretended to apprehend, he could not have adopted a better course. He did not desire to dwell on this point, because he thought the sooner they proceeded to the discussion of the Amendments the bettor it would be for all parties concerned. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that there were some drafting Amendments, and Amendments which had been agreed upon in the other. House, some of which were nonsensical or mischievous, and some of which were purely destructive and intended to wreck this measure altogether. He thought he knew something of the desires which animated those in another place, and anything more unfair than the inference of the right hon. Gentleman, or anything further from their intention, he could not I possibly imagine. It was conceivable that they might be mistaken, but a great many noble Lords knew as much about this subject as the right hon. Gentleman
210
himself. He was quite certain that not a single Amendment had been moved except with the clear intention of making the Bill a workable and effective measure. There was not a shadow of justification for the very harsh and ill-timed sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. MASTERMANsaid that as reformers he and his friends were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the announcement he had just made. Although they had been in opposition to him during most of the time in Committee, and although they were unable to get what they thought were improvements in the Bill, still, at the end of the Committee stage, there was something very like common agreement on both sides that the Bill might go forward in the form in which it was finally presented to the House. That common agreement had been absolutely broken up by the House of Lords by a series of Amendments, which, if they were not meant to be wrecking Amendments, he could not conceive the motive for moving. They all acknowledged that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in Committee, had exhibited every intention of trying to make the Bill a satisfactory one, and they had moved as many Amendments evidently designed in the interest of the small holder and the public good as for the interest of any particular class. The Lords Amendments, however, were only of one kind, and by no stretching of interpretation could any of them be said to be designed in the interests of the small holder. Some of those Amendments were not even suggested by the Opposition in Committee, and others were withdrawn after discussion as being unsuitable for the Bill. Not one of these Amendments protected the small holders; they were all designed to protect one particular class. They were a barricade against any suggestion that on any consideration the small holders or the local authority should be allowed a chance of getting the land they required except under considerable difficulties, and by paying considerably more than the market price. He appealed to the Leader of the Opposition whether he did not agree that these Amendments as they stood would make the Bill useless and unworkable. They would render it improbable that any small holdings would be established at all, except under such conditions

211
that they would be in a state of bankruptcy in a few years. It was a desolating spectacle to see this kind of treatment of what was regarded as an unopposed Bill. One scarcely knew what would have happened if it had not been unopposed. The Bill as amended would not be an improvement on the Act of 1902, which had been practically inoperative. Speaking entirely for himself, but as one who had some acquaintance with the feeling which prevailed on the Ministerial Benches, he could assure the Leader of the Opposition that they would rather this Bill were dropped than that it should be passed in the form in which it had been sent back to them.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment which permitted purchase was one of the most important Amendments made in the Bill, and undoubtedly it was conceived solely in the interests of small occupiers. He was not going to criticise the action of the representatives of the Government in another place, but he did not think they had always been fertile in reasoning. He did not know whether the hon. Member admired the defence of the Bill by the representatives of the Government in the other House. If he did not some excuse must be admitted for the majority of the other House not being persuaded by the seductive eloquence of the Minister in charge of the Bill. The most astonishing part of the hon. Member's speech was that in which he suggested that to touch the important provisions of the Bill as brought in by the Government was to be a declared enemy of the small holder.
MR. MASTERMAN: I did not say that.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had told the House that these were Amendments which it was impossible for the Government to consider. That was precisely the manner in which the efforts of the hon. Member to improve the Bill in Committee were described by the Government. Now that somebody else was altering the original terms of the Bill he was entirely converted to believe in the excellence of the measure and he was prepared to support the Government in any course they might take in dealing with another place. The hon. Member's speech smacked more of
212
the political partisan than of the social reformer. He still regarded the hon. Member, first has a social reformer, and, secondly, as a political partisan. He hoped the corrupting influence of the House would not entirely eat away his primary instincts, and that at the close of this Parliament he would not be found a mere party hack abandoning all those social ideas of which he had been a persuasive exponent. He (Mr. Balfour) was confident that the policy of the Government in dealing with the Lords Amendments would not be conceived in the spirit which had animated the two speeches delivered on the other side of the House. He was as certain as the right hon. Gentleman that, however they might differ in regard to details, there was a common wish among all sections and in both Houses to see a really serious attempt made to facilitate the construction or reconstruction of small holdings in the country.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the speeches delivered from the other side of the House were not directed to the question of small holdings, but to another topic—that known as "filling up the cup." He was rather surprised at the speech made by the hon. Member for North West Ham, in which he said that none of the Lords Amendments was pushed to a division. Surely he did not say that of the purchase proposals?
MR. MASTERMAN: I said that there were quite a number of Amendments made by the Lords which had not been even suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that the Lords Amendment which gave the labourers the option of purchase would be recognised by the labouring population throughout the country with gratitude. He was quite aware that purchase was opposed to the idea of his hon. friend opposite, but that was quite another matter. The question of advancing the ratepayers' money to enable private companies to carry on their trade and make a profit out of the labourers had not been discussed at all in this House. Upon this point the Lords Amendments were good as far as they went, and would be much appreciated by

213
traders and ordinary shopkeepers who had to pay rates, and who were going to see the rates, to which they contributed so largely, used to support private companies who were to make a profit and at the same time compete with the ratepayers themselves. Then the Lords had tried to put right the question as to county councils being coerced against their wish, and had followed the principles of representative government, which the House of Commons had abandoned. After years and years of effort local government was secured to this country, but now a Liberal Government abandoned local government and proposed to establish a local autocracy to override the will of the elected representatives of the people. He hoped those outside this House would recognise that the two violent speeches which had been delivered had nothing to do with small holdings, but were intended to fill up the cup in order that an agitation might be carried on founded upon the erroneous belief that the Lords Amendments tended to destroy the Bill.
LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. Member for North West Ham had stated that there had been no substantial Amendments introduced by the Lords except such as were in the interests of the landowning classes. The first substantial Amendment passed by their Lordships was to leave out Subsection 2 of Clause 5, and if the hon. Member had followed the reasons why that Amendment was moved he would have found that it was proposed in order to give this House an opportunity of considering again one of the propositions which the hon. Member himself had urged. It was to enable this House to consider whether the loss should be borne by the county council or by the central authority that the Amendment was proposed. The hon. Member who put down the Amendment in this House had not an opportunity of pressing the Amendment owing to the operation of the guillotine. He had heard with regret, though not with surprise, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was a style of speech which was becoming common form with the Government, who seemed to think that the proper way of dealing with the House of Lords was by objurgation. Let them come forward and present definite facts to this House, and if their proposals were rejected by the
214
other House let the Government present them to the country. The action of the Government in trying to carry out a revolution in the constitution by objurgation, and by describing the House of Lords as ready for the scrap heap or the steam roller, or imagery of that description, was not consistent with their dignity or their sincerity. He trusted that they would hear no more of it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 4, line 4, agreed to.
Lords Amendment in page 4, line 7, to leave out Subsection (2),
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURT,in moving that the House disagree with this Amendment, said he understood that it was made by the Lords on the motion of Viscount St. Aldwyn in order to enable this House to discuss the question of finance and the charges on county councils. He supposed that this was not technically a breach of the privileges of this House, but in passing he desired to protest against the action taken by the other House which was in effect a breach of the privileges of this House, because it was compelling them to rediscuss the matter of finance which had been settled here, and which the other House admitted they had no right to discuss themselves. He begged to move.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. CHAPLINsaid he objected altogether to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this was in effect a breach of privilege by the House of Lords. He had consulted the highest authorities on that subject, and the right hon. Gentleman might take it from him that there was no breach of privilege. The reason why the other House raised this question was a perfectly good one. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that no opportunity had ever been given to this House, as a whole, to

215
discuss this most important clause. It was perfectly true that it was reached on one occasion when the right hon. Gentleman informed them for the first time that he was prepared to send to the county councils, and ultimately to lay upon the table, a Treasury Minute under which, when the county councils undertook to carry out a scheme, and their scheme resulted in a loss, the Treasury would be prepared to pay a certain proportion of the loss. When they were endeavouring to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman what would happen in case of default when the work was carried out by the Commissioners, the proceedings were interrupted by the guillotine. How could the right hon. Gentleman express surprise or condemnation at what the Lords had done? He would have thought that Members on the Ministerial side would have been extremely grateful to the other House for giving this House the opportunity of which they had been deprived when the Bill was under discussion on the Report stage. The Commissioners, acting in default of the county council, were to have power to require the county councils to refund to them out of the rates any loss that might be incurred, no matter how inefficient the work might have been, or how foolish the Commissioners might have been in their estimate. That power remained in the Bill. This was most important, because it had been admitted in both Houses of Parliament by the representatives of the Government that they did not mean, as a matter of fact, to coerce the county councils, and put into force the powers they had under the Bill. But nothing definite had yet been stated by the Government on that point, and that was the reason why in the House of Lords this Amendment had been moved, and why he would now move another Amendment with the view of eliciting a clear expression from the Government as to what county councils were really to expect. He wanted to know what course the Government were going to take. County Councils had an absolute right to know, and if it had not been for the action of the other House there would have been no opportunity for eliciting the least information upon the point. He hoped the Government would now state what they really meant to do. He moved the following addition to Clause 5:—" But this
216
proviso shall not apply in the case of any scheme which the county council have declined to carry out on the ground that the same may result in a loss." What he desired to know was this—when the Government, in pursuance of the policy which seemed to be so dear to them, determined to over-ride a county council, were the council then to be mulcted in their rates by the Government, or were they not, when a scheme in opposition to their wishes had been carried out by the Commissioners and resulted in a serious loss? This was one of the most important of all the points in the Bill, and in regard to which—and it sounded like a satire on the proceedings o£ the House of Commons—this was the first opportunity they had had of raising a discussion.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he wished to repeat that he had always hoped, and still hoped, that the cases in which the Board would over-ride a county council would be rare, and further that where the Board did over-ride a county council, and the result showed that they were wrong, and the council right, they could not and would not attempt to obtain from the council the losses which might have been incurred. But there were other expenses which might be entailed upon the Board by the default of the county council other than the actual loss in working. The mere absence of action, the loss of assistance of the officers and staff of the council, would entail costs which ought not to be paid by the central authority, and which might fairly be recovered from the council. He thought they ought to leave the Board and the Treasury to judge the circumstances of each case as it arose, and there would be no fear of any injustice being inflicted either on the county council or other bodies. He must decline to accept the Amendment of the right hon Gentleman, and he moved to disagree with the Amendment by the Lords.
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
Consequential Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"At the end of the words so restored to the Bill to insert the words 'But this proviso shall not apply in the case of any scheme which the county council have declined to carry out on the ground that the same may result in a. loss." (Mr. Chaplin.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CAVEsaid that in Committee an Amendment was carried, giving power to the Board of Agriculture to pay by Treasury Minute any loss to the extent of one half which had been incurred in the case of a voluntary scheme. If a scheme had been forced upon the county council, the whole loss incurred should a fortiori fall on the Treasury. If the loss was caused by what was called the default of the county council in refusing to carry out a scheme, he did not see why that should not be dealt with either in the Bill or in the Treasury Minute proposed to be issued. He was confident that they all desired no more than what was fair in this ease, and he pressed the House to give serious consideration to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that the Lords Amendment had been inserted for the purpose of giving an opportunity to re-discuss the question in this House. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would re-consider his decision. The Government had told them that their intentions were excellent, but they should put in the Bill what their intentions really were. It was quite conceivable that another Chancellor of the Exchequer and another President of the Board of Agriculture might arise, who would say that they did not agree with the promises of the right hon. Gentleman, and that they strongly objected to any such payment from the Treasury for losses incurred. The proposal embodied in the Amendment was in the interest of the small holder, and he held that the Government had no excuse for not patting in the Bill a provision in accordance with their professed intentions unless indeed they did not intend to carry them out.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid that this Amendment as it had developed under the hands of the hon. Member for Wimbledon bore out the statement of his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham that every one of the Amendments moved in the other place were in the interests of the landlord party. The effect of the Amend-
218
ment was that, in cases where a county council had been overridden by the central authority, the whole charge of the experiment would be transferred from the rates to the Imperial Exchequer. The obvious result would be that every county council would see that they were overruled; and as soon as County Councils understood their business the whole charge of carrying out these experiments would be transferred from the rates to the Exchequer. It would be only another example of the principle already he regretted to say enshrined in this Bill of plundering the towns for the benefit of the country landlords. The Amendment was suitable as coming from the Upper House, and it would be as suitably rejected by the House of Commons.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the speech of the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme showed very clearly the views he had formed of the Bill. It was in fundamental contrast and in contradiction with the view of those who had brought forward the Bill. The hon. Member assumed that the schemes were to be a loss, but the whole policy of the Government was based on the assumption that no scheme should be undertaken which would be a loss. That view had been stated over and over again by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and if a scheme were started which resulted in a loss it would be in diametrical contradiction with the views expressed by the Government, and would show that the scheme was wrong ab initio. Who then ought to bear the loss of error and the charge resulting from it? If the Commissioners made the mistake, ought they to bear the cost of their error? The House had to choose between the two different views of the way in which the Bill was to be worked out, first, whether or not the small holdings were to be made to pay, and next as a great social reform. If the view were taken that these schemes ought never to be undertaken unless they were self-supporting, if they entailed a loss and were thus condemned as schemes, the people who made the error were those who should bear the cost of it. The Government alternative, however, was that there should never be a loss, and at the same time they proposed that the Board of Agriculture should be able to compel the county council

219
to adopt the scheme. The Board of Agriculture was an excellent body, but it was fallible; and it was plainly indulging in a kind of agrarian speculation which had not always succeeded in the past, and a certain percentage of errors were quite certain to take place. Equity suggested that the Board of Agriculture should bear the loss, and unless they did something of the kind the plan would not work at all. How was it possible to compel the county councils to undergo the charge for schemes which they did not wish to undertake? The Government plan was ingenious. The Government said, "If you fall in with our views we will pay half the loss. If you do not, we will make you bear the whole loss." On these terms some county councils might decide to undertake voluntarily schemes which they knew would result in a loss; but there were others who would naturally say that the Board of Agriculture was pressing upon them what they knew was an impossible scheme and one which most result in a loss, and they would, prefer to fight the Government and take the risk of incurring the whole loss rather than have peace with the certainty of their having to pay half the loss. This was monstrously unjust on the county councils. But what about the small holders? Was it not a pity from their point of view that there should be all this friction between the Board of Agriculture and the county councils?: Experience showed that, while the Government were right to bring the county councils into consultation and cooperation, it was absurd to expect that the Bill would succeed if the county councils were required to pay half the loss on schemes that they accepted voluntarily, and the whole loss on schemes that they resisted. The county councils would hesitate to embark on schemes which were on the margin of success. There were enormous urban areas on which the county rate fell, and the ratepayers in these areas would not consent to embark on schemes of which the success was doubtful. If such schemes were to be tried, the Treasury ought to stand behind the county councils and promise to see them through. He was not averse from making experiments of this kind, or from taking a certain risk. But then the expense ought to be borne by the general community. These reasons were conclusive in favour of the Amendment, and he could not under-
220
stand how anyone who desired to multiply the number of small holders could question the propriety of the Amendment. It should be supported by all who desired the Bill to be a real success and not a mere piece of political window-dressing. Anyone who desired to see the Bill work should see that the general taxpayer bore some of the cost which under this Bill had been so unjustly put on the local authorities of the particular districts.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,),said that the principle which the right hon. Gentleman now laid down was not the principle that inspired his Defaulting Authorities Act. He did not say then let society at large pay, he made the local authority pay in what he conceived to be the general interest. That was a principle with regard to which he had not now the right to complain when it was laid down in this clause. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that the county councils were to be concerned in the administration of this Act, but not in the costs of working. That was a novel principle. According to the Amendment the county councils were always to be relieved of the cost when they were in default. If a county council accepted the responsibility and administered the Act as it was it was to bear a certain proportion of the loss, if any; but where a county council said," We decline to carry out the Act," and when they converted themselves into the opposition and worked against the Board of Agriculture, they were to be freed from the whole of the cost. That Amendment carried them a very long way. The Government's position was that normally where the county council took up this burden loyally it was to be paid half the loss, if a loss were incurred. But where they refused the Exchequer were to have power to pay all or none of the loss. If the county council were unwilling for good reasons to undertake a scheme, believing that it would result in a loss, if the duty were then undertaken by the Board of Agriculture, and the county council helped by lending its administrative machinery, then the Board would be disposed to say, "You gave us fair warning, and you gave us your help, and we will pay the whole of the cost having regard to the assistance you have

221
rendered." But if the county council made it clear that they did not intend to help in making the experiment a success, then the discretion of the Treasury would he very differently exercised, and the county council would not be relieved of the cost which their hostile action had involved. The Amendment was one which he hoped, on reflection, no sensible man would support.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the Solicitor-General had remarked that this was a novel doctrine to which no sensible man should subscribe, but he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was aware that the County Councils Association had represented to him that this was the point of the Bill to which they offered the strongest opposition, because by this method the Government were overriding all the traditions and principles of local self-government to which we were accustomed in this country. He was not going to be led away into a discussion of educational matters, which the hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well were entirely different from those they were now discussing. In this instance the county councils, in refusing to carry out the Act, simply differed from the Government officials as to the possibility or the likelihood of the success of small holdings in the district. The right hon. Gentleman had again and again told them that as a matter of fact no charge would ever be thrown on the county council where the fault was not due to it but to the central authority. Very naturally they replied that if that was the case, why not put it in the Bill? One reason which had been given for not doing that was that there were certain initial expenses which would be thrown on the Board of Agriculture by the refusal of the county council to co-operate. He had himself moved an Amendment in Grand Committee expressly providing for that, and he had suggested that the initial and incidental expenses should be charged to the county council, but that the loss caused by the actual mistakes of the Board of Agriculture should in no case be thrown on the local authority but on the persons who had made the mistake. The right hon. Gentleman had refused the Amendment. Many people had grave doubts whether many small
222
holdings would be created under the Bill, but no doubt hundreds of inspectors and other officials would be appointed, and it seemed to be the chief object of Liberal legislation to provide a large number of persons with engagements and salaries.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid there was an extraordinary divergence between the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General, whose speech gave them more reason for pressing this Amendment. Of course, they would have been perfectly satisfied as to the right hon. Gentleman's intention that the expenses caused by the failure of the Commissioners should not be thrown on the county councils, though they doubted whether he could bind not only his own successors but successors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Solicitor-General, however, had put an entirely different complexion on the matter, for he had said that the Treasury if they thought that the county council had acted unreasonably would refuse to give anything at all, and in any case must have an absolute discretion in the matter. That clashed entirely with the version given by the right hon. Gentleman. He took it, however, that they must accept the right hon. Gentleman's as the official, version, but the remarks of the Solicitor-General showed how it might be misunderstood even by one of the Minister's colleagues. How could they expect county councillors, who had not even heard the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, to understand it better? His hon. friends around him, under the circumstances, would certainly be justified in taking a division. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in a very interesting speech, had remarked that this was one of the landlords' Amendments to which the hon. Member for North West Ham had strongly objected. The hon. Member for North West Ham had moved an Amendment in Grand Committee, to a similar effect, and had taken a division upon it.
MR. MASTERMANsaid the hon. Member would agree with him that the whole situation was completely modified by the final carrying of the Amendments of the hon. Member for Kingston.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid that in any case he hoped the hon. Member for West Ham would act up to his opinions and I support them in the division.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 459.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

Balcarres, Lord

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Bull, Sir William James

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gretton, John

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cave, George

Guinness, Walter Edward

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Hills, J. W.

TELLER'S FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Micklem, Nathaniel

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Molteno, Percy Alport

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morrell, Philip

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Beauchamp, E.

Hazleton, Richard

Murray, James

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hedges, A. Paget

Napier, T. B.

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholls, George

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

Nolan, Joseph

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bowerman, C W.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H

Nuttall, Harry

Branch, James

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Brodie, H. C.

Hudson, Walter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Malley, William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Jackson, R S.

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

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Kekewich, Sir George

Radford, G. H.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lambert, George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Cleland, J. W.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Rees, J. D.

Clough, William

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

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

Clynes, J. R.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cox, Harold

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lough, Thomas

Runciman, Walter

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Elibank, Master of

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Essex, R. W.

Mackarness, Frederic C

Seely, Colonel

Everett, R. Lacey

Maclean, Donald

Sherwell, Arthur James

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ferens, T. R.

Macpherson, J. T.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ffrench, Peter

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Callum, John M.

Snowden, P.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Crae, George

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stewart, H alley (Greenock)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Grant, Corrie

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marnham, F. J.

Toulmin, George

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Ure, Alexander

Gulland, John W.

Massie, J.

Verney, F. W.

Walters, John Tudor

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Wills, Arthur Walters

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Winfrey, R.

MR. HARCOURTsaid in the other House an Amendment was carried against the Government that some notification should be made by the Board to Parliament when they were acting in default of the county council. He thought that was not an undesirable thing, and he proposed to add the following subsection to Clause 5:—"Any order made by the Board directing the Commissioners to carry a scheme into effect shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, as soon as may be after it is made."
Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 7, line 32, after the word 'to' to insert the words 'purchase or,' "
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT moved to disagree with this Amendment, the effect of which would have been to permit persons to "purchase" as well as to "lease'" land for small holdings from a county council. He said the Bill enabled land to be sold to small holders, if it had been acquired by agreement. He had always thought that most of the land acquired under this Bill would be acquired by agreement. If that was so, Members like the right hon. Member for Bordesley, who desired that small landholders should be set up on land which they had bought, would be satisfied. But he was more and more impressed, the more he looked into it, that if they put this alternative power into the Bill they would be putting a power of obstruction into the hands of a county council which did not wish to act. That, he believed, would be a very serious engine in the hands of those who did not wish the Pill to work, and on that ground, if on no other, he must decline to accept the Amendment. He would not restate his reasons against a policy of purchase, but he would like this declaration of a general principle by the Conservative Party and the House of Lords that it was perfectly reasonable and satisfactory wherever they might think necessary to purchase land compulsorily and transfer it from one person to another to be noted. He did not
226
think it was necessary or requisite for this Bill to provide for purchase, in fact he thought it would be a disadvantage. He had noted the readiness of the Party opposite both in this House and in another place to accept this principle, and it would be useful to remember that when they desired to apply the principle to other objects and under other circumstances.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"
MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not believe they were wise in relying entirely on the principle of hiring for the purpose of establishing small holdings. He thought it most extraordinary that no member of the Government had ever thought it worth his while to allude to the evidence as to the results of hiring presented to Parliament by the President of the Board of Agriculture. There it was stated that in regard to allotments, which were now allowed to extend to four acres, and which were nothing but small holdings, where they had been hired people had become dissatisfied with them, and in more than half the counties of England they had been given up in all directions. It was scarcely credible that, although the attention of the Government had been repeatedly called to such evidence, not a single Minister had attempted to answer it, and they had never attempted to take up the challenge. The right hon. Gentleman himself was hostile to the principle of ownership, and he had said that this Amendment in some counties would be used as an engine of obstruction, and to prevent the Bill being put into operation. But did not the right hon. Gentleman see that under his own Bill, supposing that there was no demand for ownership, that would not in the least relieve the county council from their duty of supplying holdings on tenancy, if they were desired? There was already an Act in existence which required the county councils to do this, and provide small holdings for the people who desired to lease them. Consequently the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment would provide a weapon

227
for obstruction to the county council fell absolutely to the ground. He agreed that the Amendment might not have any effect, because the power given to the county councils would be purely permissive. He read the other day in a Radical journal a vehement attack upon the House of Lords because they had insisted upon the option of purchase which had been rejected by such a large majority in this House. That was absolutely untrue and was altogether a fallacy. No option of purchase had been restored or put into the Bill which did not exist before. Power to purchase was given to the county councils in Clause 26. The county councils, having already got the power to purchase, it was proposed by this Bill to deprive them, when they had got the land, of all power of reselling it. He was speaking of land purchased compulsorily. If the Government were not hostile to the creation of small ownerships, why did they object to this Amendment On the Third Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman strongly repudiated any hostility to the creation of small ownerships on the part of the Government, and said they had no objection to anything of the kind, although they had not thought it necessary in this Bill to do anything to increase them. In that case he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman refused to support this Amendment, because it was purely permissive in character, and imposed no obligation whatever upon the county councils to resell land instead of letting it on lease. All the Lords Amendment did was to give the county councils power to sell the land if for any purpose or under any conditions they found that course desirable. What objection could there be to a proposal of that kind? The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night that the Bill might possibly prove unsuccessful, and that if that turned out to be the case the Government would have to take other steps to make it a success. He was strongly convinced that the hiring system was a wrong one and was foredoomed to failure. He wanted to enable the Government to get out of the mess they were getting into. If hiring failed, this Amendment would enable them to try purchase. If hiring was not a failure, there would be no necessity to resort to purchase. He had endeavoured to put before the House reasons why the Amend-
228
ment was absolutely innocuous, although, under certain possible conditions, it might be of the greatest use. He hoped the House would not disagree with the Amendment.
Mr. WINFREYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had lost sight of the fact that the Small Holdings Act of 1892 gave the county councils power to let land. But they could not find small holders willing to purchase land, and they would not deal with them on any other terms. They desired to give the county council power to sell. They had power after all, and this Amendment would only affect one acre in 100. It could not affect land which the county council had bought for leasing purposes, or land which the county councils had bought in the open market. He ventured to say that nine-tenths of the land that they bought would be bought in the open market, and it could be resold to small holders if the county councils so wished it. The Amendment was absolutely limited to land purchase by compulsion
MR. CHAPLIN: I have just said so.
MR. WINFREYsaid he wished to emphasise that argument. Under the circumstances he thought he was justified in saying that when land was purchased by compulsion the county council should not resell it. He was very glad that the right hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill had determined to adhere to the clause as it stood.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that if he wanted further confirmation of his belief that ownership was the true settlement of this question he would find it, not only in the arguments which had been used that day, but in the silence of hon. Members on the other side of the House. This Amendment was defeated in the Grand Committee, and on the Report stage it was moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Chippenham Division. He believed it was supported by a large number on the Ministerial side of the House. He would repeat the appeal which the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division then made that in the division lobby the followers of the Government should be left free to follow their own convictions. He believed if that were done the Amandment would

229
be carried by a large majority. It was only an option that was asked for; it was not proposed to compel the county council to sell. He expected to be in the position of having to acknowledge that the House of Lords in this case was on the side of the peasantry of the country, and that the Government—he would not say hon. Members opposite, because that would be unfair—were against them. If it were explained to parish audiences what the House of Lords had tried to do, and what the Government were refusing to do, he thought it would be agreed that the Government were emptying the cup against the House of Lords rather than filling it up. What had operated against the Act of 1892 was the poverty of the people who wished to become small holders. When the Government denounced that Act, they should remember that they had refused to remove the bar of poverty. Could there be a more poverty-stricken argument than the one used that it was proposed to dispossess one owner in order to make another. If the county council dispossessed one owner, they would put thirty-two in his place in the shape of peasant proprietors. His opinions on that question were well known, and he would not detain the House by repeating what he had stated many times. Hon. Members opposite in refusing to support the Amendment were worshipping in a temple in which they were not believers. If they were to speak their mind that would be apparent. Reference had been made to Lord Onslow's Committee, and he would remind the House that all the witnesses, with one exception, who were examined before the Committee were in favour of what he was contending for. Those who were best qualified to give an opinion on the question were all in favour of ownership, if the financial difficulty were removed. Under this Bill the small holders would pay for the land which they occupied. They had been told that the refusal to sell was the first step towards the nationalisation of the land. If the country wanted nationalisation of the land let the country pay for it, and not adopt the mean expedient of making the labourers pay for it and then take the land from them. The other day the hon. Member for the Chippenham division mentioned what took place at the International Housing Conference, which was attended by delegates from Belgium,
230
Germany and other countries. These delegates attributed all the advantages of their countries over ours in rural matters to the fact that the men owned the land. The report of the meeting stated that the land Socialist speaker used some violent language in opposition and that a scene followed. If, as the hon. Member opposite had said, this Amendment would only affect one acre in 100 that was a reason why the Amendment should be accepted. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk in his own district had done good work in connection with small holdings, but from personal inquiry he found that there were not 10 per cent. of the tenants who would not give anything to be owners, and yet the hon. Member was a party to refusing this Amendment which simply proposed to give them the chance of becoming owners. This Government could give £5,000,000 for doubtful purposes in the Transvaal, but when the labourers of England wanted not so large a sum, but £100,000 or £200,000 to put them on the land, the door was banged in their faces. They would have to come to ownership as the ultimate solution of this question. He believed that if the labourers of this country were polled, it would be found that they were almost unanimously in favour of ownership. He hoped the Government would not resist this reasonable Amendment. The occupiers would not be obliged to become owners. The Amendment simply gave them the chance of becoming the owners of the land they tilled. Nothing could be more reasonable than that suggestion. He hoped hon. Members would not be prejudiced because it had been sent down by the Lords. He would like to hear from private Members representing rural constituencies some argument as to why the Amendment should not be carried. It was no answer to say that they thought tenancies better, or that they thought the occupiers would rather be tenants. He and his friends only wished to give them the option of becoming owners.
MR. NAPIERsaid that the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had stated he could not accept the Amendment because he feared that if the county council had the option of leasing or soiling they would make that the excuse for not putting the Act into force. The provisions of the Bill

231
relating to schemes would however render that excuse of no validity. He deeply regretted that the Liberal Government, by not accepting the Amendment, bad laid itself open to the charge to which it was not justly liable but which had been made out of doors, that they were not in favour of a peasant proprietary.
MR. JESSIE COLLINGS: They have said so.
MR. NAPIERsaid the Prime Minister had declared that he was in favour of-increasing the number of peasant proprietors in the country.
SIR RANDAL CREMERsaid he was entirely in agreement with one statement and one statement only of the right hon. Member for Bordesley, viz., that his views on ownerships were perfectly well known in the House. They ought to be, considering that the right hon. Gentleman had made the same speech over and over again during the fifteen meetings of the Committee upstairs and three times in the House. He was very glad that a clear issue was before the House, and he was satisfied that if a division were taken upon it their verdict would be of the same character as that of the Committee. The issue was whether the people whom the Bill was intended to benefit should be owners or occupiers. In the discussions that took place in Committee upstairs reference was made to the peasant proprietors of France, and they were advised to imitate the example which had been set in that country at the Great Revolution. But the information he received from reliable sources in France was, that the number of peasant proprietors in that country was, and had been for a long time, diminishing; and he did not want that in a generation or two, the same results should follow from the legislation they were now enacting. He hoped there would be a permanent settlement of the question, and that wealthy capitalists would not have the opportunity of buying up small proprietors in order to aggregate the land into large estates. That was the process that was going on slowly but surely in Franco. The poor peasants were tempted by fancy prices offered by wealthy men and by the tricks
232
of usurers to part with their holdings, if they created a number of small proprietors in this country, what was there to prevent the wealthy man tempting the poor man to resell his land and by such means restoring the evils of the present system, future generations having to do the work all over again. This Bill, if carried into law, would make it very difficult if not impossible to recreate existing evils. The right, hon. Member for the Bordesley Division said the Bill was based on Socialist lines, but the small Socialist wing of the House were not present to support it, and that in itself answered the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Having regard to the opportunities hon. Gentlemen opposite had of urging their views during the fifteen days the Bill was in Committee, when they opposed the Bill line by line, and also on the Second Reading and Report stages, he thought they might be content with what they had done and allow it as quickly as possible to pass into law.
MR. VERNEYsaid he much regretted that the Government could not accept this option to purchase. They had been told, and he believed it, that there would be very little land taken compulsorily. He hoped by far the large portion would be taken optionally and that many more county councils would be willing to do what they could to forward this Bill than was generally supposed. If that was so, then what was called the vice of purchase by compulsion would not come in very much, but optional purchase would be common enough, as it was only in regard to the small portions of land taken by compulsion that purchase would be prohibited. Under the whole of the voluntary part of the Bill the small holders would be able to purchase. That was obvious from the clause itself. All that hon. Gentlemen opposite desired was to give the option to purchase as well as to lease under the compulsory clause. It also fitted in with Clause 2, under which the Commissioners would ascertain the extent to which there was a demand for small holdings and would, he supposed, go round the country and report to the Board of Agriculture that so many people in a district wanted to buy small, holdings, and so many wanted to lease them, and it would depend upon how much land was sold optionally whether those

233
who desired to acquire it by purchase could do so. On the other hand, when land was taken compulsorily and leased, with regard to that minute portion, the power to purchase would not obtain. He regretted that this option of purchase was not given, because it was evidently a mere matter of detail in no way affecting the principle of the Bill, which had his warm support.
MR. GRETTONsaid he thought the hon. Member who had just sat down was under a misapprehension with regard to this Bill. Over and over again members of the Government responsible for it had declared it was a hiring Bill. In this clause there was no option of purchase whatever. All it said was that county councils desiring to lease could do so compulsorily. Again and again they had tried to improve the Small Holdings Act of 1902, by moving amendments to this Bill, which the Government as steadily refused to accept. It was a remarkable thing that all through the debates all those simple souls in the House who were really anxious for the establishment of small holdings supported this option of purchase, and only those who viewed the inner meaning of the Bill supported the Government. He believed that the real object of the Bill was political and
that the Government did not wish to establish small proprietors in this country. If their object was really to set up a free and independent peasantry, by rejecting this Amendment they would damnify their own measure.
MR. LUPTONsaid that, speaking for a large agricultural constituency, he knew there was no desire in that constituency for the purchase of small holdings, but there was a very strong desire among the labourers and small farmers who had saved a little money to obtain small holdings. They would much prefer the Bill as it passed the House of Commons to the Bill in the form in which it had come down to them from the House of Lords. They did not seek compulsory powers to expropriate the great landlords for the purpose of setting up a great number of small landlords who, probably under the pressure of money-lenders, would sell the land again. They had not idolised the existing landowners, nevertheless they did not think that such landowners as would come after in the manner he described would be better; in fact they thought they might be worse.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 30. (Division List No. 460.)

AYES.

Alden, percy.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.

Ferens, T. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Ffrench, Peter

Lewis, John Herbert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lough, Thomas

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fuller, Joho Michael F.

Lupton, Arnold

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

G'adstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Bowerman, C W.

Grant, Carrie

Maclean, Donald

Branch, James

Gulland, John W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Macpherson, J. T.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

M'Callum, John M.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

M'Crae, George

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cheetham, John Frederick

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

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

Cherry, lit. Hon. R. R.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Celand, J. W.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Clough, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Marnham, F. J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hyde, Clarendon

Massie, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Idris, T. H. W.

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cox, Harold

Jackson, R. S.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Montgomery, H. G.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jowett, F. W.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Murray, James

Elibank, Master of

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Nicholls, George

Essex, R. W.

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Everett, R. Lacey

Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

Nuttall, Harry

O'Malley, William

Runciman, Walter

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Radford, G. H.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wills, Arthur Walters

Rainy, A. Rolland

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Rees, J. D.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

Snowden, P.

Winfrey, R.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Rowlands, J.

Toulmin, George

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, John Frederiek Peel

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cave, George.

Hills, J. W.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander, Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Faber, George Denison (York)

Napier, T. B.

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment—
"In page 4, line 40, after the word 'land' to insert: '(3) No laud shall be acquired by a county council without their county except with the consent of the council of the county in which such land is situate, provided that any county council aggrieved by a refusal to give such consent may appeal to the Board, and the Board shall have power finally to determine all questions arising under this subjection and to settle the terms of arrangement (if any) between the county councils of their respective counties,' "
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURT,in asking the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment, said he had given a pledge to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, who had expressed great anxiety that the Birmingham authorities should have power to take or acquire land in Worcestershire. Before compulsory powers were put into force for acquiring land in another county the Board of Agriculture had to be consulted, and it alone would confer the compulsory powers.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. CHAPLINsaid that in this case there was a provision that if the county
236
council refused to give consent the Board of Agriculture might, under the subsection, determine all questions. He was not going to put the House to the trouble of dividing; he knew it would be perfectly useless, but he thought the alteration made in another place was perfectly reasonable, and that the Amendment ought to be accepted.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the Government's proposal would lead to a great deal of friction in the future, and that it would be a source of bad administration and extravagance. It violated the principle that the people of a county ought to have a voice in their self-government, and, further, if a neighbouring county council invaded their area they would have no protection at all, but would be entirely at the mercy of what was in this connection a foreign authority.
MR. HARCOURT: They have the protection of the Board of Agriculture.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid they had not that amount of confidence in the Board of Agriculture; he would rather have the protection of his own county council and such influence as he could exert over his brother electors than the Board of Agriculture in London.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he quite agreed with the noble Lord. In Somersetshire they were perfectly willing to give these, powers to the county council, but what they objected to was the County Council of London or some great borough sending men down to be placed on the land in different counties, and using those counties as colonies. They were willing to extend hospitality to their own county, but not to London and to other parts of the country. They believed that the best way to arrest rural depopulation was to throw the land open to men who knew something about cultivation, and were skilled labourers, and not to men from cities who had no agricultural knowledge, who must inevitably make a failure, and who in the end might become a charge on the ratepayers.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had been informed that London had no intention of relieving its congestion at the expense of Somerset. The Board of Agriculture would take no steps to associate the population of a town with any county without carefully considering whether it was likely to be beneficial.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 2, after the words 'for' to insert the word 'selling or,' and after the word 'and' to insert the words 'sold or,' "
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he did not know that it was necessary to pursue the question. This was a consequential Amendment, and he moved to disagree.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 5, line 19, after the word 'constituted' to insert the words 'under rules approved by the Board,'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid these words were unnecessary, and he moved to disagree. The words confined approval to the rule, but he wanted the Board to consider the constitution of the whole of these Associations, and he did not think the mere approval of the rule was sufficient.
Lords Amendment—
"In age 5, line 33, after the word 'council,' insert the words 'as agricultural holdings.'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT moved to disagree. it was obvious that these words were not necessary in this place, because the county council could only deal with the and so acquired for the purpose of small holdings and allotments. The words of the clause were carefully drawn, so that lot more than one dwelling-house for occupation should be erected on one mall holding.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 6, to leave out Clause 13,"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid that when he saw this Amendment on the paper his heart bled for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, because the clause had been specially inserted in order to meet his views. But he had received a subsequent assurance that the clause was omitted solely because the repeal was included in the schedule of the Bill. The noble Lord, however, who had carried this Amendment, had not realised the statutory rule that no substantive repeal could be put in the schedule without being in the body of the Bill; therefore, it would be necessary to reinstate Clause 13. He moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 7, line 3, after the word 'district' to insert the words 'as agents for the county council,'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid that these words were in the Local Government Act of 1894, Section 4, which provided that the county council might employ other subsidiary authorities in their district. He moved to agree.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 10, lines Hi to 20, to leave out Subsection (2) and to insert '(2) The powers of improving and adapting land for allotments under the Allotments Act shall include power to erect or permit to be erected any stable, cowhouse, or barn,'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid that this was an Amendment made in the House of Lords on the Third Reading. The noble Lord had found that by the removal of the subsection there would not be power under the existing law to erect even a pig-stye upon the allotment. The right which he desired originally to extend by the subsection was in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Onslow's Committee. It was quite clear that they must have larger powers to deal with buildings on allotments, especially as they had increased the size of the allotments. Surely, it was quite a sufficient protection that there was not to be erected more than one house for occupation on any one allotment. He moved to disagree with the Amendment.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 11, line 20, agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In line 20, after the word 'section' to insert the words 'and have refused to comply with a representation made by the council of the urban district or parish for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments,'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid it was extremely difficult to understand what this amendment meant. He thought there must be some misunderstanding, and the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps consent to disagree.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 12, line 16, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the end of line 19. and to insert the words 'empower the council to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act,'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid the object of the words struck out by the Lords was to avoid any subsequent litigation. There
240
must be a point at which litigation should be stopped, otherwise the county council would never be in a position to know when they could proceed to adapt and build upon the land. By the Bill as it left this House that point was when the order had been made absolute by the Board of Agriculture. He moved to disagree.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. CHAPLINsaid there was no doubt that this Amendment was of very great importance, and he would like the House to consider the answer to one question which he was going to put. The Bill said that the Order when so confirmed was to become final, and was to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act had been complied with, and that the Order had been duly made within the powers of this Act. After all, none of them were infallible, not even the Board of Agriculture. Supposing for a moment that the requirements had not been complied with, and that the Order had not been duly made, and was not within the powers of the Act, what was going to be the position then? The Board of Agriculture, by the clause as it stood, had a very wide, and it seemed to him, dangerous power. It would be in a position which would enable them to override a different opinion on the part of the Courts; it made the Board of Agriculture a Court in itself finally to decide upon its Own acts and its own proceedings. He was informed that this power was very rarely inserted in Acts of Parliament, though, he was told, that no doubt it was in some Acts. It was not a usual thing to insert in an Act, and why it should be inserted, in a Bill dealing with this particular question he really did not understand. It seemed to him to be giving a very dangerous power to the Board of Agriculture, who were no more entitled to have it than any other Department of the Government, or anybody else. He thought a power of appeal ought to be given in, at all events, those cases where the Commissioners acted in default of the county council. Such a power of appeal was given in the Irish Evicted Tenants Bill, and he could not understand why it should be refused here. He hoped the

241
right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this proposal.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman took such a serious view of the effect of these words. The landlord was not, under the clause as it left this House, deprived of any right of appeal either to the Board or to the Courts that he would have except when a certain stage—when the Order had been made absolute—had been reached. There were all the usual legal remedies before the Order was made, and the words of the Bill had been taken word for word from another statute. The Light Railways Act was a parallel case. The moment the Order was made it ought to be treated as final in order to prevent any further disputes and to avoid having the matter reopened. They were only following precedent in this matter, and he felt sure the House would, agree with him when he said that it would be a great mistake after the Order had been made, after the man had been put into the tenancy and had probably erected buildings on the land, to allow anybody to raise a dispute.
MR. CHAPLIXsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not met his point that an appeal was given under the Evicted Tenants Bill and refused in this Bill.
MR. CAVEput the ease of an Order containing provisions which went beyond the Act. If the words omitted in another place remained, the person whose land was taken under the Order, which, on his hypothesis, was beyond the powers of the Act, would have no redress at all. The mere fact that a public department, rightly or wrongly, had confirmed the Order would be conclusive. Whether there was precedent or not, that was a wrong thing to put in an Act of Parliament. In many cases it was impossible for owners to intervene until the Order was actually made. Let them imagine a case where a Board was going to confirm an Order and the owner objected. He would have no chance whatever of succeeding. When an Order was wrongly confirmed and came to be enforced, surely the owner had a right to say, "This Order exceeds the power given under the Act of Parliament." He hoped his hon. friend would press this Amendment to a division.
MR. WINFREYpointed out that there would be two inquiries before the Order was made.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 130; Noes, 28. (Division List No. 461.)

AYES.

Alden, Percy

Dobson, Thomas W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Clements (Denbigh)

Jackson, R. S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Elibank, Master of

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Essex, R. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Beauchamp, E.

Everett, R. Lacey

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex Romford)

Ferens, T. R.

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

Ffrench, Peter

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Bowerman, C. W.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

Branch, James

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes. Leigh)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lough, Thomas

Burns Rt. Hon. John

Grant, Corrie

Lupton, Arnold

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gulland, John W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Lewis

Macdonald, J M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Maclean, Donald

Cheetham, John Frederick

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Macpherson, J. T.

Cleland, J. W.

Hazelton, Richard

MacVeigh Charles (Donegal E.)

Clough, William

Hedges, A. Paget

MCallum, John M.

Clynes, J. R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

M'Crae, George

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Corbett, C. H (Sussex E Gr'inst'd)

Hobart, Sir Robert.

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

Cox, Harold

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Manfield, Harry (Nothants)

Cromer, Sir William Randal

Horniman, Emslie John

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Crooks, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Marnham, F. J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Idris, I. H. W.

Massie, J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Richards, T F (Wolverhampton

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roberts, Charles, H. (Lincoln)

Toulmin, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Verney, F. W.

Montgomery, H. G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ward, John (Stake upon Trent

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ward, W (Dudley Southampton

Murray, James

Rowlands, J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Napier, T. B.

Rumanian, Walter

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nicholls, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nuttall, Harry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wills, Arthur Walters

O'Malley, William

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilson, W. T. Westhoughton)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Snowden, P.

Winfrey, R.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Radford, G. H.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

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

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Rea, Waller Russell (Scarboro'

Strachey, Sir Edward

Rees, J. D.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

NOES.

Aclard-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Faber, George Denison (York)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Gretton, John

Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Hills and Mr. Fell.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingham)

Morpeth, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Amendment—
"In page 12, line 22, after the word 'acquired' to insert the words 'and every such order shall, if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired: provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in this subsection, no new easement created by or in pursuance of such order over land hired by a council shall continue beyond the determination of such hiring,' "
Read a second time and agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 15, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'authorised by an order under this Act to be.' "
Read a second time.
SIR W. ROBSON,in moving that the House disagree with the Amendment, said it was really consequential on the Amendment decided by the last division.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he understood this Amendment by the Lords was accepted by the Government.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid his noble friend the Lord Chancellor thought that the words did not make very much difference.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 15, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'for the purposes of small holdings or allotments' and to insert the words 'under this Act.' "
Read a second time.
SIR W. ROBSON SIR W. ROBSON moved to agree with the Lords Amendment to leave out the words "for the purposes of small holdings or allotments."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words for the purposes of small holdings or allotments.'"—(Sir W. Robson.)
Motion agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House disagree with the Lords Amendment to insert 'under this Act.'"—(Sir W. Robson.)
Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 15, line 27, to leave out the words 'or other land,' and to insert the words 'home farm or is otherwise,' "
Read a second time.
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
"To leave out the Words 'home farm.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'home farm' stand part of the Lords Amendment."
MR. CHAPLINsaid he was in the House of Lords when this matter was discussed and he remembered distinctly that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill accepted this Amendment on behalf of the Government.
MR. HICKS BEACHasked why the Government proposed to leave out these words.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was instructed that the Government did not accept the words "home farm."
MR. WINFREYsad the Government offered to accept the words "home farm on any estate," but the words "on any estate" were negatived.
MR. CAVEwished to know what was the difference. If the words "on any estate" were not objectionable, he could not see why the words "home farm" were objectionable.
MR. HAROOURTsaid in Committee and also on the Report Stage in that House, the right hon. Gentleman opposite agreed that it would be unwise to put the words "home farm" in this clause, on the ground that the person who was to decide whether a farm was to be taken or not would say the clause stated specifically the only sort of farm that was not to be taken. It was generally agreed that it was an unwise limitation. It would be a mistake from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view to put those words in the clause. The words "on any estate" had in law some limiting effect. The Government proposed to disagree with the insertion of "home farm," but to agree with the remainder of the Amendment. In all the discussions of this measure he had done his best only to raise points which seemed to him to be worthy of serious consideration, and he was grievously disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman should sweep away the words altogether.
MR. RAWLINSONsuggested by way of compromise to put in the words "home farm on the estate."
MR. HARCOURTsaid that those words were offered and rejected by the House of Lords.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 462.)

AYES.

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcanes, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Beach, Hn. Miehael Hugh Hicks

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson John Frederick Peel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bull, Sir William James

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carille, E. Hildred

Guinness, Walter Edward

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Cave, George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Lord John P. Jaoicey-

Hills, J. W.

Chaplin, Ht. Hon. Henry

Hunt, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Georg Faber.

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Beauchamp, E.

Bethel), T. R. (Essex Maldon

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Bowerman, C. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Branch, James

Illingworth, Percy H.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Jackson, R. S.

Radford, C. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rainy, A. Rolland

Button, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Jowett, F. W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rees, J. D.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richar Knight

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

Cheetham, John Frederick

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Leese, Sir Jose, hW. (Accrington

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cleland, J. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Clough, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Clynes, J. R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rowlands, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lough, Thomas

Runciman, Walter

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

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cowan, W. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cox, Harold

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Crooks, William

Maclean, Donald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Dobson, Thomas W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Snowden, P.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W)

Elibank, Master of

M'Callum, John M.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Essex, R. W.

M'Crae, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Ferens, T. R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Ffrench, Peter

Marks, G. Croydon (Launcesto n)

Toulmin, George

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Marnham, F. J

Verney, F. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Massie, J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Grunt, Corrie

Masterman, C. F. G.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Gulland, John W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Molteno, Percy Alport

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Montgomery, H. G.

Whitley, John Heury (Halifax)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morrell, Philip

Wills, Arthur Walters

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Hazleton, Richard

Murray, James

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Napier, T. B.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham

Nicholls, George

Winfrey, R.

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nuttall, Harry

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Amendment, as amended, and agreed to.
Consequential Amendment made.
A consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 15, line 28 after the word 'dwelling-house,' to insert the words 'or which is woodland not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a council under this Act,' "
Read a second time, and amended, by inserting after the first word "by," the words "or adjacent to."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Lords Amendment—
"In page 15, line 31, after the word 'undertaking,' to insert the words 'or includes the
248
site of any ancient monument or place of historic or archæological interest,' "the next Amendment.
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he was sorry he could not accept these words, but he did not think that the House need have the least doubt that those sites would be properly preserved. He might point out that a place of historic interest might be every battlefield over the whole country, which was now occupied as agricultural land. That obviously was not the meaning intended by the Lords Amendment. No land could be taken compulsorily without the order of the Board of Agriculture, and the House might be satisfied that the Board would never authorise the taking of any place which was the site of an ancient

249
monumentor place of historic orarchœological interest. If by any chance they failed, there was the First Commissioner of Works, who was authorised to protect these things.
MR. CHAPLINasked the First Commissioner of Works if it was not the fact that the President of the Board of Agriculture accepted this Amendment in the House of Lords?
MR. HARCOURTsaid that the noble Lord had allowed the Amendment to be put in order that it might be carefully considered afterwards.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he had full confidence in the First Commissioner of Works.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 16, line 4, agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 16, line 4, to leave out from the word 'holding' to the end of the subsection and to insert the words which either does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax not exceeding £50, nor any part of such holding shall be acquired compulsorily under this Act.'"
Road a secone time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he was not able to accept the Amendment as it stood. He would take a rather exaggerated case in order to make the thing clear. Suppose there was a hill farm or a down farm, let at Is. per acre, and that it consisted of 1,000 acres, not an acre of it could be taken for a small holding for the purposes of intensive cultivation, unless 50 acres were taken. As he had the opportunity he intended to move to make the subsection read: "No holding which either
does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax, not exceeding £50, nor any part of such holding shall be acquired compulsorily under this Act.'
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman seamed somewhat apprehensive as to whether a desirable small holding might be cut out of a farm of 1,000 acres let at Is. an acre. All he could say was, "God help the small holder" under such conditions. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment was scarcely worthy of consideration. It was not a great thing to ask. The words were taken out of the definition of the small holding itself, and it seemed a little unreasonable to refuse not to interfere with a holding which was the exact description of a small holding under the terms of the Small Holdings Act of 1902 and incorporated in this Act.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that all this Amendment did was to exempt a holding defined in this Bill as a small holding. If it was objectionable that such a holding should be taken and broken up for small holdings or allotments it was as objectionable to create a similar holding which would be defined as a small holding under this Bill. He did not think the reasons given for refusing to accept the Lords Amendments were reasonable.
Quest ion put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 37. (Division List No. 463.)

AYES.

Alden, Percy

Branch, James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Brunner, J. F. L., (Lancs., Leigh)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cooper, G. J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

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

Beauchamp, E.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Cowan, W. H.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Cremer, Sir William Randal

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

Cheatham, John Frederick

Crooks, William

Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

Cherry, Et. Hon. R. R.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Clongh, William

Dobson, Thomas W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Clynes, J. R.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Essex, R. W.

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ferens, T. R.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rowlands, J.

Ffrench, Peter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Runciman, Walter

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macpherson, J. T.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal. E.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Callum, John M.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Crae, George

Sherwell, Arthur James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Her bert John

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Grant, Corrie

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

Simon, John Allsebrook

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Snowden, P.

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Marnham, F. J.

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Massie, J

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montgomery, H. G.

Toulmin, George

Henderson, J. M. (A berdeen, W.)

Morrell, Philip

Verney, F. W.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Horniman, Kmslie John

Murray, James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Hyde, Clarendon

Napier, T. B.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Idris, T. H. W.

Nicholls, George

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doneaster

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Jackson, R. S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Nuttall, Harry

Wills, Arthur Walters

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Lambert, George

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras) E.

Radford, G. H.

Winfrey, R.

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rees, J. D.

Lewis, John Herbert

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

NOES.

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbg, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Guinness, Walter Edward

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cave, George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Stanley, Hon. Arthur. (Ormskirk)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hills, J. W.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire).

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Hicks Beach.

Court hope, G. Loyd

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Craik, Sir Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Amendments—
"In page 16, line 4, to leave out from the word 'holding' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'which either does not excceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax not exceeding fifty pounds, nor any part of such holding shall be acquired compulsorily under this Act.' "
"In page 16, line 8, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'subject to the restriction by this Act imposed.' "
Read a second time and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In page 16, line 36, alter the word 'purposes' to insert the words or for the making of roads, reservoirs, railways, or other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of the estate.' "
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid these words appeared to be too large an extension of the general wording of the Bill; but he believed he would meet the wishes of

253
those who moved them if he moved to disagree with the Amendment, and to insert in line 36, after the words "purposes," the words "or for roads necessary therefor." He moved.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. CHAPLINasked was it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make no provision except for roads?
MR. HARCOURT: That is so.
MR. CHAPLINthought they might leave out railways and reservoirs, but "other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of the estate" were very important.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had reason to believe the words he had suggested would be acceptable.
Amendment made to the Bill instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to, by inserting in line 3G after the word "purposes," the words "or for roads necessary therefor."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Lords Amendment—
"In page 17, at the end of Clause 33, to insert the words 'Where the land has been hired compulsorily by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, any question as to the right of the landlord to resume possession of the land or any part thereof under this section shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England.' "
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 18, lines 13 and 14, to leave out Subsection (4)."—read a second timn.
MR. HARCOURTsaid it was impossible to accept this Amendment. The enactment which the Government had proposed to repeal by this clause was the one that prohibited the erection on an allotment of any building except a tool-
254
house, shed, fowl-house, or pigsty, and compelled the local authority to pull down any buildings that were erected. It had always been the intention of the Government under this Bill that the clause as to buildings should be extended, and for that reason he moved that the House do disagree with this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 19, at the end of Clause 36, to insert the words '(3) Where any receipts or payments of money under this Act are entrusted by the county council to the Small Holdings and Allotments Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, the accounts of those receipts and payments shall be accounts of the county council, and made up and audited accordingly.'"
MR. HARCOURT: I move to agree with this Amendment. We desire that these accounts should be subject to audit.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 19, line 28, to leave out the words any society.'"—read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid this and the three following Amendments were consequential, and had been put in by the Government in another place, in response to a very reasonable objection that was taken, to make it quite clear that they did not guarantee the solvency of any society, but simply the definite advance to it of a sum of money. He moved to agree with the Lords Amendments.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 20, line 39, agreed.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 20, line 39, after the word 'appointed' to insert the words 'in default of agreement between the parties.'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT moved to disagree.
MR. CAVEasked if there was any explanation to be given.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid repeated discussions had already taken place on this. The reason was that the State had undertaken to pay the arbitrator, and it was desirable that they should have the appointment and not the parties.
MR. CHAPLINconsidered the explanation most unsatisfactory. Why should not the parties be left to come to an agreement between themselves as to the appointment of an arbitrator? There seemed to be a desire on the part of the promoters of the Bill to put every conceivable thing they could, necessary or unnecessary, in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. Why ought it to be for the Board of Agriculture to appoint an arbitrator, when the two parties could perfectly well agree upon an arbitrator of their own? It was an entire departure from any practice they or anybody else had ever heard of in the drafting of a Bill.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the chief reason given why the Board were to appoint the arbitrator was that the Treasury were going to pay. He wished

AYES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Ferens, T. R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Alden, Percy

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lough, Thomas

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Fowler, Rt. Ron. Sir Henry

Lupton, Arnold

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. M. (FarkirkB'ghs)

Beauchamp, E.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Grant, Corrie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macpherson, J. T.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gulland, John W.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Bowerman, C. W

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

M'Callum, John M.

Branch, James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Crae, George

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Harmsworth, Cecil G. (Wore'r)

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hazel, D. A. E.

Marnham, F. J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Canston, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hedges, A. Paget

Massie, J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Clough, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Clynes, J. R.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Montgomery, H. G.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Horniman, Emslie John

Morrell, Philip

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hyde, Clarendon

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cooper, G. J.

Idris, T. H. W.

Murray, James

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Napier, T. B.

Cowan, W. H.

Jackson, R. S.

Nicholls, George

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Crooks, William

Kekewich, Sir George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Nuttall, Harry

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lambert, George

O'Malley, William

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Elibank, Master of

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Essex, R. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

Everett, R. Lacey

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

they were certain of that, because their chief contention was that they had no security that the Treasury would pay.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid it was part of the preliminary expenses.
MR. GEORGE FABERpointed out that the Bill only said that the Board might "if it thinks fit" undertake to pay out of the Small Holdings Fund "the whole or any part of the expenses incurred by the council in relation to the acquisition of land." It was entirely in the discretion of the Board.
SIR W. ROBSONwas understood to say that this point did not come within the county council's province, but it did come within that of the Treasury
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided:—Ages, 140; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 464.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Radford, G. H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Rainy, A. Rolland

Simon, John Allsebrook

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rees, J. D.

Snowden, P.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rowlands, J.

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

Winfrey, R.

Runciman, Walter

Toulmin, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ure, Alexander

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

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Verney, F. W.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Walters, John Tudor

NOES.

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

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cave, George

Guinness, Walter Edward

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Hills, J. W.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

Craik, Sir Henry

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Hicks Beach

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Faber, George Denison (York)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment, in page 23, line 12, agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 23, line 12, after the word 'arbitrator' to insert the words 'agreed upon between the parties or in default of agreement,' "
Read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
SIR W. ROBSONsaid this was a case in which the State was undertaking a very large part of the cost of creating small holdings, and it was necessary when undertaking this financial burden that the machinery should be as inexpensive as possible. In relation to this particular part of the Bill it was only right in these circumstances that the whole responsibility should rest with the central authority. It was by no means
258
desirable that the local arbitrator should always decide in these cases.
MR. CHAPLINcould not see any objection in principle to the two contending parties electing the arbitrator. The Solicitor-General had told them that as the State was undertaking so large a part of the cost above all things the appointment of the arbitrator should be an inexpensive proceeding. It was not denied that the appointment of an arbitrator by the two parties might be the best and most proper way of coming to a decision. As regarded the expense, the Attorney-General appeared to have overlooked Subsection 6 in the same schedule which provided every conceivable check upon the cost. Surely arbitrary powers of this kind to disallow any kind of costs were unnecessary. In view of these facts the opposition of the Solicitor-General to the selection of an arbitrator by the two parties fell to the ground altogether. A more unsatisfactory reply or one less suited to the occasion he did not think he had ever heard in his life.
MR. CAVEasked if it was the intention of the Government that the Board should undertake the preliminary expenses.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had stated constantly that that was the intention. He did not think that the Board should be compelled to pay all the expenses which might be run up, but it was always their intention to pay the preliminary expenses.
MR. RAWLINSONcontended that the two parties concerned were the best judges as to the appointment of an arbitrator. The Board had already got power to fix the amount of remuneration to be paid to the arbitrator or valuer, and therefore it was a fixed quantity, and if the parties incurred expenses above the scale fixed by the Board they would have to pay it themselves. It was well known that in many parts of the country there were certain valuers who would give satisfaction to both parties, and surely if both parties wished to have that man they ought to have that power. Was it not rather hard that the Board of Agriculture should always send down and pay the arbitrator? In one case they had a local man who could dispose of the question to the satisfaction of both parties, while in the other case they had a stranger who knew nothing of the locality, who might make a mistake and who certainly would not give the same satisfaction as a person chosen in the way he had indicated. The parties would far sooner have an arbitrator of their own choosing than one who would start possibly with a prejudice against them. He hoped the Government would reconsider their decision.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the argument on the score of expense had been disposed of by his hon. and learned friend. He understood the Government to prefer that local arbitrators should not be chosen.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid there might be a number of arbitrations in one district. In one or two cases a local arbitrator might be employed, and in others an
260
arbitrator from headquarters might act. It might be extremely inconvenient to have local arbitrators in one or two cases and central arbitrators doing the rest of the work. The Government thought it better to have the arbitrator appointed by the central authority.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman now was not in consonance with what he said earlier. Why did he object to the arbitrator being appointed by agreement between the two parties? The appointment of an arbitrator by the central authority might involve the Treasury in considerable expense. The land in this country differed materially in value in different counties. It might be very dangerous to send a valuer from Middlesex to Cornwall or Devonshire, because, although he acted with the very best intention, he might put a purely fictitious value on the land, which in one case might be unfair on the landlord and in another might be unfair on the Treasury or the local ratepayer.
MR. J. WARDsaid it appeared to him that this Amendment was drafted for the purpose of delaying operations—
MR. CHAPLINasked whether the hon. Member was entitled to impute motives to hon. Members.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not attribute motives to Members of this House. I do not see that the observation of the hon. Gentleman is relevant to the question before the House.
MR. J. WARDsaid that, if he had been allowed to finish the sentence, he was going to say that the Amendment appeared to be drafted for the purpose of delaying the arbitration proceedings. He hoped he was entitled to make that observation. It seemed to him that first of all the parties would probably disagree and that eventually an application would have to be made to the Board of Agriculture. In that way time would be lost.
MR. GRETTONsaid hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House had not been able to fathom the real reason for the Government's refusal to agree to this Amendment. If the parties to a dispute could agree on an arbitrator, there should be no objection to his being appointed. Did the Government wish to create a number of salaried posts and put their own friends into them? That seemed to be a feasible motive. Another
reason might be that by appointing arbitrators of their own they could get a fictitious value put on the land. The Government should state exactly what their reason was.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 140; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 465.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balearres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Carlile, E. Hildred

Guinness, Walter Edward

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Gretton and Earl of Ronaldshay.

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

Hunt, Rowland

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Craik, Sir Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Lords Amendment—
"In page 23, line 32, to leave out the words 'by the Board' and to insert the words 'under this schedule.'"
Read a second time, and disagreed to.
An Amendment made to the Bill, instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to "in page 23, line 32, by leaving out the words 'an arbitrator appointed by the Board,' and inserting the words 'the arbitrator,' "—(Mr. Harcourt)—instead thereof.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 23, line 33, to leave out from the word 'experience' to the word 'but' in line 36.'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT moved formally to agree with the Lords Amendment, because he intended to re-insert the words in page 24, after line 2, where they would be more convenient. The words had been discussed in Grand Committee. It was perfectly true that this was only one of the elements involved. The arbitrator must naturally consider rent and rating and assessment, as one of the elements which indicated the value at which he should arrive. These words were not originally in the Bill, but they represented a concession which he made in Committee—he thought it was a very good concession—and he was not prepared to recede from it.
Lords Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In Schedule 1, page 24, after line 2, to insert the following paragraph, 'The arbitrator in assessing compensation to be paid for land to be compulsorily acquired shall take into consideration the rent (if any) at which the land has been last let, and the annual value at which the land is assessed for the purposes of income-tax and rating.' "
Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment, "In lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'unless otherwise agreed to keep the buildings in repair and." Agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 24, line 40, after the word aforesaid' to insert the words 'and (unless otherwise agreed) to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usualy borne by tenants to insure the buildings, and to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair, and shall, if the landlord has given notice in the prescribed manner that he so desires, provide for the reservation to him, and persons authorised by him, of exclusive rights of fishing and sporting over the land.' "
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid that he first of all proposed to disagree with this Amendment and then to amend the Bill by inserting after "aforesaid" these words,

265
"And unless otherwise agreed to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair," and later on to insert in subsection (4) the words," The terms and conditions of the hiring, including any reservation of sporting or fishing rights." He was omitting the absolute covenant to pay all taxes and rates, because, on the whole, it was more convenient that that should be a matter for settlement between the Board, the county council, and the landlord. With regard to the question of game, that point was never raised in this House, either in Committee or on Report, and Members of all shades of opinion were agreed that that was a matter which ought to be left to the discretion of the county council and the Board for settlement. It was perfectly clear that they were not setting up sporting rights. The Board, except under very exceptional circumstances, would never authorise the taking of game rights. Of course, that would inflate the rent. The people who would agree about the sporting rights would be the landlord, who might want to keep them or get rid of them; the county council, who would not want to pay a higher rent in order to hand them over to the tenant; and the Board, who would not be interested in them. It was wiser to leave the matter perfectly open. In another place there seemed to be some anxiety lest the game and fishing rights should not be considered by the valuer, if they were taken from the landlord, in assessing the rent. Therefore he proposed to provide in the Bill that the vainer should take into account "any reservation of sporting or fishing rights." He believed those words covered the whole of the question that had been raised.
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
Amendments made to the Bill—
"Instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to, by inserting in page 24, line 40, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words 'and unless otherwise agreed to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair,' and by inserting in page 25, line 21, after the word 'severance' to insert the words the terms and conditions of hiring, including any reservation of sporting or fishing rights.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Lords Amendment—
"In page 24, line 42, to leave out the words 'that it can be so broken without depreciating the value of the land or.' "
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT moved to disagree with this Amendment. It was not clear to him why these words had been taken out. They were not meant to apply to rich pasture; they were only meant to apply to poor pasture which might be made more valuable if intensively tilled. He was sure it would be a great disadvantage to have these words removed.
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 25, line 2, after the word 'not,' to insert the words 'except with the consent of the landlord,' and after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'fell or cut timber or trees, or any right to.'"
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 25, line 5, after the word, 'allotments,' to insert the words 'for which proper compensation shall be paid to the landlord,"
Read a Second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he proposed to amend this Amendment by adding new words. He wished to substitute for the words of the Amendment the words "and except the payment of compensation for minerals, gravel or clay so used."
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to—
"In page 25, line 5, after the word 'allotment,' to insert the words 'except the payment of compensation for; minerals, gravel, or clay so used.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
MR. J. WARDasked whether gravel necessary for roads and paths was to be paid for in addition to the rent.
MR. HARCOURTsaid it was. He would point out that this land was taken only for agricultural purposes.
Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 25, line 16, to leave out the word 'valuation,' and insert the word 'arbitration,' and leave out the word 'valuer,' and insert the words 'arbitrator agreed on between the parties or in default of agreement.'"
Read a second time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
SIR W. ROBSONsaid this Amendment made a very important change in the Bill, and the House would the more forcibly appreciate the resistance of the Government to this proposal when they remembered their action with regard to the other Amendments relating to the arbitration provided for under the subsection. The Amendment before the House was to substitute an arbitrator for the valuer in cases where the hire of land was to be settled. The House would understand the difference between an arbitration and a valuation. The arbitrator sat as a Judge; he not only heard evidence but he could only proceed on evidence. Although in this particular case he was allowed to act on personal experience and knowledge, yet he was obliged to hear evidence and act upon it. The valuer on the other hand went down to the land, and he was able to make such inquiries as he thought fit. He had no need such as the arbitrator had to hear either party in the presence of the other; in other words, valuation instead of litigation was a business proceeding and, therefore, a much cheaper proceeding. It seemed to the Government that it was essentially a simpler and much cheaper transaction to hire a few acres of land, and that it should not be treated on the same footing and in the same way as if they were taking the land for a railway or some other such purpose. They were now dealing only with the hiring of land. They had left untouched the Lands Clauses Act and the provisions for arbitration in the case of purchase. In this instance they were dealing with hiring, and they were dealing with hiring, after all, on the terms and conditions of a lease. In these circumstances he would ask was it reasonable, was it sensible, to impose this dilatory and costly litigation as a condition precedent to the hiring of a few
268
acres of land to an agricultural labourer? Hon. Gentleman opposite had often expressed their desire to make this Bill workable, and he was sure that they would see that if they inserted this Amendment and imposed these arbitrators at this stage they would condemn the Bill to absolute sterility. They had had Acts of Parliament in which the public authority had been allowed to take land compulsorily for this purpose, and when they had come into operation they were ineffective because of the cost of the proceedings. There could not be any reasonable objection to allowing in this Bill what was the invariable rule in ordinary business transactions regarding agriculture. Where two parties bargained for the renting of land there was a valuation. But this Amendment proposed arbitration, and he hoped that the House would strongly resist any attempt of this kind to overwhelm the Bill. They had eliminated the prospective value from the Bill altogether, and they had given the landlord power to resume where the land would be useful for building, mining, or other purpose of an industrial character, so that there was no reason in settling the rent to take into consideration the element of prospective value. It was shut out. They had only to deal with the agricultural conditions, and these were such as any expert valuer could settle for himself and decide in a few hours. If instead of that they had arbitration, which meant litigation, though without lawyers, undoubtedly they would be making the Bill impracticable, and they would be offering to the peasantry of England a boon which they did not intend them to get.
MR. CAVEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had exaggerated the case. Some of these Amendments had been described by the First Commissioner of Works as wrecking Amendments. He had looked right through the Bill for some kind of justification for the language which they had heard, with a great deal of astonishment, and, he must say, with some resentment on that side of the House. Up till now he had not found a single Amendment which, by the greatest stretch of imagination, could bear a description of that kind. This Amendment dealt simply with the question whether the rent was to be dealt with by

269
arbitration or valuation. The difference between the two was this—the arbitrator heard both sides and the valuer did not. The arbitrator acted on the facts as given in evidence; the valuer picked up information whore he liked, hearing one side in the absence of the other, and if he chose hearing one side and not hearing the other. If the valuer made a mistake he could not be pulled up; if the arbitrator made a mistake he could be. When land was to be taken arbitration was right; but when a rent was to be fixed and compensation was to be paid, then for some occult reason arbitration was wrong and valuation was the only thing. It was not quite accurate to suggest that if they had arbitration it would be a very expensive procedure. It was a very expensive thing with railway companies, no doubt. But in this case there was simply a single arbitrator provided for; he had not to hear expert witnesses nor counsel; he had to simply deal with the facts put before him, and it was really a great exaggeration to describe that procedure as expensive; it was a simple procedure, and he could not understand why the Government should accept arbitration for one purpose and repudiate it for another. He hoped that the matter would be considered, and that they would have for both purposes, namely, the purchase of land and the hiring of land, a tribunal which both parties could accept.
MR. MASTERMANsaid he had been present throughout the whole of the discussion of these Amendments, which was more than the hon. Member opposite could say. Anyone who had considered the Amendments apart from technicalities, and had grasped the inner meaning of some of them, could not honestly say that what he had stated at the beginning of the discussion was exaggerated language. Every one of these Amendments had been devised, he thought he might say, for the purpose of serving the interests of one particular class against another class.
MR. CAVEsaid he entirely disagreed with the hon. Member; be ides when he said exaggerated language had been used he was not referring to the hon. Member but to the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. SPEAKER: This is not an opportunity for discussing all the Amendments.
270
There are only a few more Amendments left, and the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Amendment before the House.
MR. MASTERMANsaid the operation of the Amendment was to bar the various avenues by which small holders could be got on the land. It would make compulsory hiring as difficult as or rather more difficult than compulsory purchase. That was really the object of the Amendment, Thich ought to be rejected.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid the proposal of the Government was that the valuer or arbitrator should be appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and they withdrew from the parties the right to appoint a local arbitrator who was satisfactory to both parties. The only reason given for adopting this course was that they thought the Board of Agriculture would be more likely to appoint someone who would make the scheme work and value the land lower than a local valuer, The hon. Member opposite was under a delusion in imagining that under the Lords Amendment it would be necessary to have expert witnesses or any other proceedings than those which the Board of Agriculture considered proper. The situation was that they were proposing to take away the right of the parties to appoint a local arbitrator, and they placed the matter entirely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. In the next place they withdrew the valuation proceedings from the light of publicity, and from all control by those who had a right to see fair play. The Amendment of the Lords in this case was quite appropriate, because there was ample provision in the Bill already for preventing any abuse of this power.
MR. WALTERSsaid that when a landlord was fixing a fresh scale of rents, and his tenants did not see eye to eye with him, they did not set up a court of arbitration or call witnesses. What they did was to call in a valuer who fixed a fair rent. They did not always choose a local valuer, because it was often better to fetch one from a distance. As for the difficulty of getting practical agriculturists to come from a distance to fix a fair value, hon. Members must know that that was

271
a thing which was happening every day. He would like to point out one very obvious reason why a local valuer should not be appointed by agreement between the county council and the landlord. Very often the local valuer had to earn his living in that particular district, and he was constantly called upon to do work for the landlord and the large tenant farmer, and when he was asked to value land, although he might be perfectly honest, he was conscious all the time of his own personal interest in the district. He thought it was only common sense to say that the Board of Agriculture should appoint an outside experienced valuer who would be entirely free from bias and local prejudice.
LORD R. CECILthought the speeches of the hon. Member opposite and the Solicitor-General had been delivered under a misapprehension. Legal proceedings were costly if the subject in dispute was valuable. The method of procedure was generally settled in the Court. If the parties had a great interest at stake, whatever proceedings they devised they would fight as hard as they could. If the subject involved was not of much value generally speaking the procedings would not be costly. He was convinced that the Government were attaching a great deal too much importance to the question whether this proceedure should be valuation or arbitration. Arbitration possessed certain obvious advantages, because its procedure was well known to English jurisprudence and was perfectly satisfactory. He was amazed at the Government rejecting the proposal that the parties should be allowed to select their own tribunal. What the proposition

AYES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Ferens, T. R.

Alden, Percy

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury, E.)

Cough, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Clynes, J. R.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Beauchamp, E.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Grant, Corrie

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cooper, G. J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Bowerman, C. W.

Cowan, W. H.

Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Branch, James

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Brodie, H. C.

Crooks, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Elibank, Master of

Hazleton, Richard

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Essex, R. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Cheetham, John Frederick

Everett, R. Lacey

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

came to was that they were not to have a valuer with any knowledge of the land in the district. It was an obvious advantage to have someone really familiar with the circumstances of the case.
MR. CHAPLINsaid the Solicitor-General argued this question on the amount of rent to be paid, ignoring all the other matters which were dealt with in this section. He wanted to know on what authority the Solicitor-General stated that it would affect only a few acres of land. In numberless cases, if the Bill met with the success which it was hoped it would have, the county councils would take considerable tracts of land. There was nothing more likely than that a council might take 500 acres at a time. That was what the hon. and learned Gentleman called having an arbitration for a few acres at a time. There might be only a few acres in question when the land came to be let to a smaller tenant, but he maintained that there would probably be a considerable number of cases in which a large acreage would be involved. His hon. and learned friend behind him had pointed out the difference between a valuation on the one hand and an arbitration on the other. It seemed to him that when they had to deal with the large transactions which were certain to arise under this Bill they ought not to be deprived of arbitration, under which both sides of the case could be hoard. There was a special section in the schedule which provided for the cost.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 466.)

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

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Holland, Sir William Henry

Massie, J.

Seely, Colonel

Horniman, Emslie John

Masterman, C. F. G.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hyde, Clarendon

Micklem, Nathaniel

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Idris, T. H. W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Simon, John Allsebrook

Illingworth, Percy H.

Montgomery, H. G.

Snowden, P.

Jackson, R. S.

Morrell, Philip

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Jowett, F. W.

Murray, James

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Kekewich, Sir George

Napier, T. B.

Strachey, Sir Edward

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Nicholls, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lambert, George

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

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

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Toulmin, George

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Nuttall, Harry

Vcrney, F. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Walters, John Tudor

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Lough, Thomas

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lupton, Arnold

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Mucdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rees, J. D.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Callum, John M.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Winfrey, R.

M'Crae, George

Rogers, P. E. Newman

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

Rowlands, J.

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

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Runciman, Walter

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

NOES.

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gretton, John

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Guinness, Walter Edward

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Valentia, Viscount

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. G.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire.)

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

Hills, J. W.

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

Craik, Sir Henry

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

TELLERS FOR TUE NOES—Mr. Cave and Mr. Hicks Beach

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Lords Amendment—
"In page 25, line 18, to leave out the word 'value,' and insert the word 'arbitration,'"
Road a second time and disagreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In line 21, to leave out the words 'rating or taxation,' and insert the words 'income-tax the terms and conditions of the hiring,'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he proposed to amend the Amendment by leaving out "tonus and conditions of hiring," and deleting the words "income-tax," and adding to it "or rates." He did that because rating was a very fair elemont in calculating rental, and he
274
thought for the present at all events it was better to have both assessments.
Amendment to the Lords Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'income tax the terms and conditions of hiring,' and insert the words 'or rates.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"In page 25 lines 33 to 40 to leave out paragraph 6."
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid the object of this Amendment did not appear to be quite clear. He therefore proposed to

275
disagree with this Amendment and in place of it to leave out 'require' in line 37 and insert 'reasonably require for purposes of valuation.' "He moved.
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
Words so restored to the Bill, amended, in page 25, line 37, by leaving out the word "require," and inserting the words "reasonably require for the purposes of valuation,"—(Mr. Harcourt)—)—instead thereof.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 25, line 43, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'in default of agreement.' "
The next Amendment, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—
"in page 26, to leave out line 9."
The next Amendment, read a second time, and disagreed to.
Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Solicitor-General and Sir Edward Strachey.
Three to be the quorum,
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Harcourt.)

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—(Mr. Burns.)
Lords Amendments considered—
Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 3, line 17, agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 17, after "inspector, "insert" (3) The Secretary of State may order that a local inquiry be held in regard to the exercise of any powers conferred on him under this Act," the next Amendment, read a second time, amended, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 19, line 17, agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 20, line 4, inclusive, postponed.
Subsequent Lords' Amendments to the Amendment in page 43, line 14, to insert a new clause (Crown rights), inclusive, agreed to.
Postponed Lords' Amendments amended, and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments amended, and agreed to.

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

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Harcourt.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Notification of Births Bill; Irish Land (No. 2) Bill; Employers' Liability (Insurance Companies) Bill, with an Amendment; Patents and Designs Bill; Patents and Designs (Consolidation) Bill; Cabs and Stage Carriages (London) Bill, with Amendments.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 334].
PATENTS AND DESIGNS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 335.]

CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 337].
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at two minutes before Twelve o'clock.