Lords Sitting of 10 August 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—County Courts (Advocates' Costs)* (240); Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund)* (241); Prison Charities* (242); Government Annuities and Insurance* (243).
Second Reading—Labourers' Cottages and Allotments (Ireland) (210); Bombay Civil Fund* (222); Parcel Post (223); Isle of Man (Officers)* (227); Pensions Commutation* (230).
Committee—Municipal Corporations* (140); Wellesley Bridge (Limerick)* (228); Educational Endowments (Scotland)* (220–239); Poor Law Amendment* (221).
Select Committee—Report—Bills of Exchange [No. 233].
Report—Bills of Exchange* (183–234); Electric Lighting,* (229).
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [45 & 46 Vict. c. 41]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [45 & 46 Vict. c. 33]; Beer Dealers' Retail Licences Act (1880) Amendment [45 & 46 Vict. c. 34]; Friendly Societies (Quinquennial Returns) [45 & 46 Vict. c. 35]; Casual Poor [45 & 46 Vict. c. 36]; Corn Returns (No. 2) [45 & 46 Vict. c. 37]; Settled Land [45 & 46 Vict. c. 38]; Conveyancing [45 & 46 Vict. c. 39]; Copyright (Musical Compositions) [45 & 46 Vict. c. 40]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders [45 & 46 Vict. c. clxviii]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders [45 & 46 Vict. c. clxix]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) [45 & 46 Vict. c. clxx].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Orders Nos. 3, 4, 26, 62, 63, 65, 67, 72, and the appendix, considered and amended: Then it was moved after Standing Order 29. to insert the following Order:
Order 29 a, On or before the thirtieth day of November a copy of so much of the said plans and sections as relates to the district of any urban sanitary authority in England or Ireland in or through which the work is intended to be made, maintained, varied, extended, or enlarged,
1328
or in which any lands or houses intended to be taken are situate, together with a copy of so much of the book of reference as relates to that district, shall be deposited with the clerk of that sanitary authority—Agreed to:
Then it was moved after Standing Order 34. to insert the following Order:
Order 34 a. On or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy of every Bill of the second class, whereby it is intended to authorise the construction of any work on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river having a Board of Conservators constituted by Act of Parliament, shall be deposited at the office of the Conservators of the River:
Agreed to: Ordered that the said Orders be declared Standing Orders, and be entered on the Roll of Standing Orders: Ordered that the Standing Orders as amended be printed. (No. 238.)

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Order relating to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill.—(The Earl Granville.)
Motion agreed to.

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons Consequential Amendments, and reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments, considered (according to order).
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to agree to the first of the Commons Amendments upon the Amendments of this House, and I will state in a few words the effect of that Amendment, and the condition in which it leaves the Bill. My Lords, it has been impossible for the Government or for the other House of Parliament to agree to the introduction of the principle of the absolute veto of the landlord into this Bill. It would have the effect of excluding the tenant in limine from any power of application to the tribunal constituted by the Bill; but as the Bill now stands it certainly does contain greater and more careful precautions for the purpose of obtaining the same end which I understood the noble Lords opposite desired to attain by the absolute veto which they proposed and carried in this House the other day. I do not

  1329
  understand that noble Lords opposite desire that the veto of the landlord should be used for any and every conceivable motive. I do not understand from them that it should be Sic volo sic jubeo stet pro ratione voluntas, but that there was a very strong reason in their minds—namely, the tenant's ability to pay his arrears, upon which the landlord might stand in resisting the attempt of his tenant to obtain the advantages of this Bill. The landlord's interest in this respect is identical with that of the State, and we all agree that everything that can be done ought to be done and must be done to prevent a fraudulent tenant—a deceptive tenant—who is able to make good to the landlord the whole of the debt he has incurred from obtaining the advantages of the composition provided by the Bill. My Lords, if that is so, then I would point out that the Bill, as it now stands, provides a greater security than before for the attainment of that end. The Bill, by the adoption of a portion of the words of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, stands in this way. It presumes and intends, in the first place, that the application to the Land Court or Land Commissioners shall be, if possible, a joint one. That stands now in the first line of the clause. The Bill intends that the application shall be the application of the landlord and the tenant together, and [that is entirely in harmony with another provision which was in the Bill originally—that wherever the landlord and the tenant have united in a joint affidavit to the Court, that in itself should be primâ facie evidence that there was no intention to defraud, a provision which I have no doubt, in 99 cases out of 100—in all cases where there was no ground for grave suspicion upon the face of the matter—would practically settle the matter. This, then, is the construction and presumption of the Bill as it now stands; but, of course, it does not exclude the separate application of the tenant any more than the separate application of the landlord; but where the tenant makes a single application he is bound to give a notice of 10 days to the landlord. That, we think, is a matter of very considerable importance. It will prevent any tenant from fancying that he can rush into Court and take his chance of what he may get, if he does
  1330
  not succeed in inducing the landlord to make a joint application. He will know that the case is one of an exceptional character, which will require exceptional investigation, and he will have to give this ample notice to his landlord. Our belief is that with these precautions there is very little fear of much abuse of the powers given by the Bill. The principle of the Bill, as has been fully explained before, is that of the inability of the tenant to pay, and we have never proposed that this compulsory composition should have effect except in cases where the tenant is really unable to pay. As far as the principle goes, that has always been on the face of the Bill. The difficulty is to carry that principle into practical effect. We believe that the Bill in its present form will go far to secure that that principle shall be practically enforced; and, I may add, in connection with this, that by accepting the Amendment moved by my noble Friend (Viscount Lifford) we have now restricted the adjudication of these cases to legal members of the Sub-Commissions, together with the County Court Judges of Ireland, under the supervision, of course, of the Land Commission itself. My Lords, with these precautions, and subject to such an adjudication, we believe that there will be little danger of the Irish landlord being compelled to accept a composition of the arrears in cases where he can reasonably obtain the whole from the tenant. It is as little our wish as that of noble Lords opposite that that should be so; but while we are unable to agree that the decision of that question should be left absolutely to the landlord himself, without question or inquiry, or that the landlord, for any possible motive, totally distinct from the public interest in the matter, should be able to defeat the operation of this measure, while we cannot agree to admit that principle into the Bill, we are desirous to do everything—and I think we have done everything—which can secure this result—namely, that no Irish landlord shall be compelled to accept the composition under the Bill in cases where an honest tenant ought to pay in full. With that explanation, I confidently recommend the Commons Amendments to your Lordships' acceptance.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken

  1331
  of the alterations made by the Commons in the first Amendment of your Lordships' House as if they were matters of some importance. I cannot follow him into that discussion; but it appears to me that all the Commons have done is simply to disagree with the Amendment on the subject of option that we sent down. My views on this subject are unaltered; and in re-stating my opinion upon it, I wish to say, in the first place, that the grievance which I deprecate is the injury to the landlord who has got good arrears—that is to say, arrears which, if the tenant paid all he possessed, would be discharged. When I used that argument before, I was met by a noble and learned Lord opposite with a reference to the advantages that would result to the landlords who had bad arrears; but with them I have nothing to do. They make no difference as to the treatment of the landlord who has good arrears, and are no sort of consolation to him. I heard one statement of the noble Lord with very great surprise. He said that the principle of the Bill was the tenant's inability to pay.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): One of the principles.
  THE MARQUESS Of SALISBURY: It is upon the very surface of the Bill that you exempt from payment the whole of the visible property of the tenant. Following up Amendments moved in this House, the value of the holding has been, under very narrow restrictions, excepted from that exemption; but, as the Bill originally stood, the whole of the visible property of the tenant—that is, the value of the holding, and all that was necessary for the cultivation of his land—was exempted from the necessity of paying his debt to his landlord. It is impossible, therefore, to pretend that the inability of the tenant is the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord sets aside that which is the principal possession of the tenant. He says that the creditor may have lent on the faith of this; but the creditor shall not have this from the tenant. The fact remains that you take from the creditor resources on which he is entitled to count—the resources on the faith of which he lent his money. You have, by a mere act of power, taken from the creditor resources on which he was entitled to count, and on which he lent his money. You have taken from the creditor and given to the
  1332
  debtor—not to debtors throughout the country, but to a particular class only—property which, owing to their turbulence and violence, you were unable to refuse to them, owing, as you say, to such refusal being inconsistent with the maintenance of the public peace. However much you may blink the matter, that is the reality; and these facts, though you may turn your face away from them, will not be forgotten in the future. Tenants and other debtors in the future will remember them; and if the time should ever arrive when any other body of debtors shall be sufficiently powerful to make the Government of this country feel that to require them honestly to pay their debts is inconsistent with the maintenance of the public peace, you may depend upon it that this precedent will be brought up against you, and that you will be compelled again to incorporate in the Statute Book the same pernicious, the same immoral exemption as that which you are about to add to the Statute Book now. My Lords, it is my opinion, and the opinion of noble Lords on this side of the House, that the substantial objects of the Bill could be gained, and these dangers, fruitful in the future, be avoided, if it were required that the landlord should be allowed to dissent from the operation of the Bill if he thought fit. I believe that these terms offered to the landlord would, in the vast majority of cases, reinforced, as they would be, with considerations arising out of the state of things in Ireland, and the pressure of public opinion in that country, practically secure that the large majority of the landlords would have come in and accepted them. If you had accepted the Bill in that form you would have carried out the reform you desire with outlaying down this dangerous precedent of public plunder to mislead future generations. But it may be said that this is an exceptional measure, that it is a final measure, and that if we pass it we shall hear no more of the subject. We heard that argument, however, last year, and we know how marvellously the germ theory has infected politics of recent years. We know how the measures which are pressed upon us in one year as final are, in succeeding years, pointed to as containing the germs of a principle which necessitates some further step in the same direction. What has been in the

  1333
  past will probably recur in the future. I hold it as most probable that this Bill will fail in accomplishing the object which you have in view. I do not believe that it will enable any considerable number of tenants to go into the Land Court. In the first place, the operation of the measure is limited to those tenants whose holdings are below £30 per annum; and, in the next place, it is limited to those who are able to pay a year's rent which is now in arrear. So that the tenant who is to be enabled to take advantage of this Bill must be one who occupies precisely the middle point—that he is not rich enough to occupy a holding of a value of more than £30 per annum, and that he must be rich enough to be able to produce a year's rent at a moment's notice, which he has not previously been able to obtain. In these circumstances, I do not think that any large number of Irish tenants will come under the operation of this Bill, or I think that, at all events, there will be a very considerable and influential number of such tenants who will be left outside of it. The "broken men," of whom the noble Marquess behind me spoke the other night, and the richer men, whom you ostentatiously exclude, will remain excluded from the operation of the Land Act. And what does the Prime Minister tell you will happen if this measure fails, as I think it will? The right hon. Gentleman says—
  "When Parliament has interfered in the face of the very grave objections that are to be justly urged against all legislation of the sort, in providing means of this kind for the discharge or settlement of private engagements—when Parliament has once done this, it appears to me that the argument becomes very strong and very difficult to answer; that it ought to interfere effectually; and that it ought not to be baffled in that purpose."—[3 Hansard, cclxix. 1270.]
  That language is intended to recommend merely the Bill of the present year; but does it not contain a principle which will recommend the Bill of next year? You have interfered once between the landlord and the tenant, you have set a principle aside, and now that you have overcome your first modesty, what should hinder you from going further—it is only the first step that costs—why should you not go on and take more and more effectual measures, and still even more at the expense of the unfortunate landlord? My Lords, I have pointed out to your Lordships over and
  1334
  over again the dangers of this Bill, which I had hoped that we might have escaped from by the adoption of the Amendments I had the honour to propose for your Lordships' consideration. I do not wish my own personal feeling to be misunderstood in this matter. We have often been told—and the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) is very fond of using the argument—that we should cast the responsibility of all this exceptional legislation upon the Government, and that we should take care to do no act that might attach any portion of the censure due to its failure to the House of Lords. But have your Lordships escaped that danger by yielding in the past? Last year we passed a Bill which seemed to many of us to be detestable; but have we been allowed to throw the responsibility for that Bill upon Her Majesty's Government, or are we not continually reminded that we share in that responsibility? The noble Earl the late Viceroy of Ireland (Earl Cowper) used that argument the other night. He told us that, as we had passed the Land Act, and had allowed our Amendments upon it to some extent to be negatived, therefore we were responsible for the principle which was embodied in that Bill. Such an argument, if good as applied to that Bill, must be equally as good as applied to the present measure. What does Mr. Bright say on this point? He says—
  "The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has given us another edition of that general condemnation of the Land Act of last Session, of which we heard so much in that Session from hon. Gentlemen opposite. If that Act was so unjust …., how was it that in the other House of Parliament it was allowed to become law, as it could do only by the consent of that august and ancient Assembly? If I sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and were in sympathy with the other House of Parliament, as hon. Gentlemen opposite are supposed to be, I think I should let alone the question whether the Land Act, in all its parts, was wise or just."—[Ibid., cclxxi. 1636.]
  That is the way in which you are now told that you cannot throw the responsibility for passing this measure upon the Government. I ventured to censure the Land Act during the Recess, and this is what the Prime Minister said in reference to my observations—
  "My doctrines, Sir, were the doctrines of an Act of Parliament, and no man has ever shown that I have preached any doctrine in advance of the provisions of that Act. They were the

  1335
  doctrines of an Act of Parliament passed by this House, passed by the other House, passed by the vast majority in the other House."—[3 Hansard, cclxvi. 178.]
  And here the Prime Minister fell into a slight inaccuracy, because he went on to say, "which Lord Salisbury has at his command." The Attorney General, speaking on Colston's Day at Bristol, on the 12th of November, 1881, said—
  "I say that Lord Salisbury is morally answerable for the passing of every line, every word, every letter of that Bill. He could have destroyed it on its second reading; but he bid his forces disperse and declined the contest. He could have struck out every clause; but he contented himself with alterations. The third reading went with his permission, and I say now that he and those who act with him, and even those who acknowledge allegiance to his leadership, are, as lawyers say, estopped from denouncing an Act which they could have stayed in its course, but did not."
  I have quoted these observations because I now mean to say that I intend to incur no responsibility in respect of one jot or tittle of this Bill. I believe that the Bill would be only permissible with the alteration in it which makes the consent of the landlord necessary before the measure can be put into operation, and that without that alteration I believe it to be a most pernicious Bill; that it is an Act of simple robbery; and that it will bear the gravest fruits as a legislative precedent in the future. Those are my opinions. I have had the opportunity this morning of conferring with the noble Lords who formed the majority of your Lordships' House, by whom the Amendment was carried, which was sent down to the other House, and I found that the overwhelming majority of their Lordships were of opinion that in the present state of affairs, especially those which have recently arisen in Ireland and in Egypt, it is not expedient that the Arrears Bill should be thrown out. I do not share in that opinion. If I had had the power I would have thrown out the Bill. I find myself, however, in a small minority, and, therefore, I shall not divide the House.
  Lords Amendment, in page 1, line 11, after ("holding") insert—
  ("Or of the tenant with the assent of the landlord (such assent to be presumed on the expiration of ten days from the service upon the landlord in the prescribed manner of notice of such application, in the absence of any notice of dissent from such landlord or his agent)").
  1336
  In the words inserted by the Lords, the Commons propose to leave out from the first ("of") to the end of the insertion, and to insert—
  ("Either of them after ten days notice in the prescribed manner by the landlord or his agent to the tenant, or by the tenant to the landlord or his agent: Provided that for the purpose of application under the provisions of sections two, ten, and thirteen respectively of this Act, the Land Commission may in respect of such notice extend the periods in the said sections respectively mentioned for any time not exceeding ten days.")
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  On question? resolved in the affirmative.
  Lords' Amendment, in page 2, line 14, after ("security") insert—
  ("Provided that in the event of the next subsequent sale of the tenancy, the arrears of rent not satisfied by payment or remission shall be a sum payable to the landlord out of the proceeds of the sale within the meaning of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.")
  The Commons propose to leave out ("the next subsequent") and insert ("a"), and after ("tenancy") to insert ("within seven years from the making of such order"), and after ("shall") to insert ("to an amount not exceeding one year of such arrears nor one half of the proceeds of such sale "), and to leave out ("the proceeds of the sale") and insert ("such proceeds").
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL,),in moving that their Lordships agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, said, this was a well-understood practice in Ulster, where the sale of tenant right had been in regular operation. When an Ulster tenant came to sell his tenant right the landlord did not expect that the whole of the proceeds should be swallowed up in payment of arrears; and it was that practice the Government wished to follow in this matter. He thought the Amendment of the Commons was reasonable, and hoped it would be adopted.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  On question? resolved in the affirmative.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, he rose to move an Amendment to the said Amendment, in order to render the wording of the clause more definite. It would appear from the Amendment as it stood

  1337
  that the landlord would have no claim upon the tenant right for arrears which might arise hereafter. He, therefore, proposed to limit this provision, giving the landlord a lien to the extent of only half the arrears dealt with by the order of the Court; and with that object he moved to insert, after the words "arrears of rent," the words "dealt with by such order, and."
  Moved, To insert in the said Amendment' after the words ("arrears of rent"), the words ("dealt with by such order, and.")—(The Duke of Abercorn.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, the noble Duke was evidently right in his intention, and there was no objection to the insertion of the words by which he proposed to give effect to it. It did not seem right that the Land Commissioners should not take into consideration the sale of the land as well as the tenant right security, because it might be that the tenant would have no means of raising the money. It was far more prudent that the Commissioners should take the whole matter into their consideration and deal with it as they thought reasonable.
  On question? resolved in the affirmative.
  Lords Amendment in page 2, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("may, if the commissioners think it reasonable"), and insert ("shall").
  The Commons propose after ("shall") to insert ("so far as the commissioners think it reasonable").
  On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL, the said Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment in page 2, line 24, leave out from ("where") to end of the sub-section and insert—
  ("According to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the rent of such holding has actually been paid at some time after the day on which it became legally due, the rent which according to such usual course of dealing ought to be paid in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid.")
  The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 2, line 24, for the following reasons:—

  "(1.)Because the amendment is doubtful and uncertain in its meaning.

  "(2.)Because if under the amendment the rent, which according to the usual course of
  1338
  dealing ought to be paid in the year 1881, does not for all purposes satisfy the rent of that year the amendment is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, while if it satisfies the rent of that year for all purposes the amendment is unnecessary."

  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, the next Amendment dealt with the phantom which had haunted that House under the name of the "hanging gale," as to which the Commons had inserted in the Bill a Proviso to the effect that where it appeared that according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the rent of such holding had usually been paid on some day after the day on which it became legally due, the usual day of the payment should be deemed for the purposes of the subsection to be the day at which the rent accrued due. Their Lordships had omitted that Proviso, and inserted the following words:—
  "Where according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding the rent of such holding has actually been paid at some time after the day on which it became legally due, the rent which according to such usual course of dealing ought to be paid in the year 1881, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid."
  The Commons had disagreed with their Lordships' Amendment on the ground that it was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. When the Bill first came before their Lordships, he was under the belief that it was not intended to touch the hanging gale; but he now frankly confessed that he was mistaken. He had since found that the intention of the Bill, as it left the House of Commons, and as it now returned to their Lordships, was that the tenants who were to come under its operation should, at the end of the year 1881, be absolutely clear from all arrears, whether under the name of ordinary arrears or of hanging gale. It was believed that the operation of the Bill would be imperfect unless it were so provided, it being felt that it would be quite possible for an unscrupulous landlord, after he had obtained all the advantages of the Bill, to evict a tenant from his holding by exacting a half-year's or a year's rent postponed under the custom of the hanging gale. He would move that their Lordships do not insist on their Amendment.
  Moved, "That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he was very glad his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal had admitted that the clause was intended to sweep away the hanging gale. During the passage of the Bill through the House they had heard many conflicting statements as to how the Commissioners would deal with the hanging gale; but he (the Marquess of Waterford) had held from the beginning that this clause would have the effect of doing away with it. Therefore, he was all the more pleased to have a definite statement on the part of the Government that it was to be taken away, because they now knew the worst that could happen.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): That it was to be treated as an arrear.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that the Law Officers of the Crown had put into the Bill provisions which covered each other; and when the question came before the High Court of Appeal in Ireland the words in this clause would be found to mean nothing as regarded the hanging gale, because they did not refer to it in any way whatsoever. As Her Majesty's Government had now declared their intention of sweeping away the hanging gale, the position of the landlords would be that they would be unable to collect their rents due in May, as they would have to wait until the end of the year before they could serve ejectments. He thought that was a course extremely unfair to the Irish landlords. The Prime Minister had given three different meanings of his (the Marquess of Waterford's) words in the Amendment. With two of these meanings he entirely disagreed. He meant to save the hanging gale in the only way it could be saved—by clearing the tenant up to May, 1881, instead of up to December, 1881, as was the case in the clause as it stood. He was very sorry for the sake of landlords in Ireland that the banging gale would be taken away, and he thought it another injustice of a most unjust Bill.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he was sorry that the Government had determined to pass the Amendment, as he
  1340
  thought its effect would be to cause the landlords to press for their rent when it was due without leaving a hanging gale. The tenants, having been used to a hanging gale, would resist the attempt to do away with it. On the other hand, when it had been swept away, the landlords would object to its revival; and the result would be to create an endless amount of litigation and bad feeling between landlords and tenants, and a constant friction wherever the hanging gale had been the custom.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN(who was indistinctly heard) said, he had been under the impression that by the Bill, as proposed by the Government, the hanging gale was to have been retained; and, had he thought that it would not be retained, he should have felt himself obliged to modify his general opinion as to the Bill. To do away with the hanging gale would be so unjust and so injurious, without doing the smallest possible good, that if he had known that it was to be taken away he should have felt himself unable to support the Bill, as he had done on the second reading. He thought it would be seen that, with such a provision in the measure, those tenants who had paid their rents would be in a much worse position than those who had refused to pay their rent, and waited to take advantage of this measure. There was no doubt that a great many of the Irish tenants had fallen into arrears through bad harvests; but it was equally true that many were in arrears with their rent through disinclination to pay. The tenants who had paid their rents would now be in a worse position than those who had not paid, as they would have this hanging gale still over their heads, while other tenants who had withheld their rents, taking advantage of the Bill, would, by the sweeping away of the hanging gale, have half-a-year's rent, and in some cases a whole year's rent, deliberately given them, while landlords whose estates were now subject to the hanging gale would, from no fault of their own, have either six months' or a year's income taken from them. He thought that most unjust to the honest tenants of Ireland, and also most unjust to the landlords. It was well known that in many cases money was raised upon the hanging gale, and in such cases the landlords would find

  1341
  what they regarded as an asset taken away from them. He was under the impression that when the measure was before their Lordships on a previous occasion, the Lord Privy Seal had given an assurance that the hanging gale would be retained; and he, therefore, could not support the Amendment.
  Question put.
  A division being challenged,
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he wished to point out that if a division were pressed for, and it resulted in their Lordships insisting on their Amendment, it might be fatal to the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he had no wish to divide, and was content with having made his protest.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 7, after ("money") insert—
  ("Provided always, that where two or more parties are entitled to the arrears, the Land Commission shall have power to decide the rights of the parties, and the proportion in which the said arrears shall he divided amongst them.")
  The Commons propose to leave out ("said arrears") and insert ("sums so ordered to be paid to or for the benefit of the landlord.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Page 4, the Commons propose as a consequential Amendment in page 4, line 30, after ("or") to insert ("any member.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment in page 4, line 30, after ("Sub-commission") insert ("being a barrister-at-law.")
  The Commons propose to add ("or solicitor.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment in line 33, after ("shall") insert—
  ("Subject to an appeal to the Land Commission, on and in such conditions and circumstances as may he prescribed.")
  The Commons propose before ("subject") to insert ("in reference thereto and"), and after (appeal") to insert ("on matter of law.")
  The Commons propose as a consequential Amendment to the Bill in line 33, to leave out ("in reference thereto.")
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, that the next Amendment of the Commons related to the matter of appeal. The Commons concurred with their Lordships as to the right of appeal on matters of law, but not as to the right of appeal on matters of fact; and he submitted that there were very strong reasons indeed against giving an appeal from the original inquiry before the County Court Judge or the legal Assistant Commissioner to the Land Commission in Dublin. Those matters of fact might be safely intrusted to that inquiry; and it was evident that in the case of very small questions, involving only a few pounds, if they were carried before the Court of Appeal on a matter of fact—for example, as to whether the tenant had or had not the means of paying his arrears in full—the effect in point of expense and delay on the small cottier tenant might be ruinous. Such a power of appeal in the hands of an unscrupulous man might be used totally to defeat the object of the Bill. He believed the advantage to the landlord would be very slight indeed, but that the Amendment would place in the hands of unscrupulous men a power that would be a very dangerous weapon. On these grounds he asked their Lordships to agree to the Amendment of the House of Commons.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment, in page 10, leave out Clause 17.
  The Commons propose to insert an amended clause in lieu of the one struck out.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, the next and last Amendment related to the clause to be substituted for Clause 17. In that clause the power to the landlords of deducting local rates had been omitted. The clause, as it stood at first, was not in the original Bill, but was introduced by an eminent legal Member of the other House, and in its first form it included both local rates and public taxes; but it had appeared on further examination that there would be the greatest difficulty and embarrassment in applying the clause to local rates; and the author of the clause himself had since become a party to the Amendment as it now stood. The clause, as now proposed, was a very important one, but it

  1343
  was confined entirely to public taxes; and he hoped their Lordships would pass it in that form.
  Amended clause agreed to.
  Bill returned to the Commons.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES AND ALLOTMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 210.)
(The Lord O'Hagan.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD O'HAGAN,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had passed the House of Commons without opposition, and he hoped their Lordships would not refuse to give it a second reading. It was a measure of a limited character, but of great importance to a large class of industrious men in Ireland. By the 9th section of the Land Act of 1881, the Commissioners were empowered to provide cottages for labourers, and to allocate for their use small portions of ground on such terms and under such limits as might seem just and reasonable. It was a wise and salutary provision, necessary in the circumstances of the country, dictated by humanity, and calculated to promote order and civilization. Unfortunately, amidst the multitudinous provisions of the Act, there were two very material omissions in connection with this matter. The jurisdiction of the Commissioners arose only in contentious cases, when landlord and tenant came adversely into Court, and could not be applied when they reached an amicable agreement and filed a consent to be ratified by the Commissioners. This was the first omission, but the second was more important. The power to protect the labourer was vested in the Court, which had proved its willingness to give him the full benefit of the Statute, in many cases. But there was no penalty provided for the enforcement of their order. No doubt, as a Court of Record, they could commit for contempt and issue attachments; but it was a cumbrous remedy for disobedience, and was often inapplicable and inefficient. Plainly, there was no reason why their useful jurisdiction should not be extended to consensual as well as to contentious cases, and equally little for the non-existence of a statutable penalty adequate to the compulsion of
1344
obstinate persons, who, themselves deriving great benefits under the Land Act, strive to deny to others the advantages which they were designed to be recipients of, though in a humble way. The result had been practically that the benevolent purpose of Parliament was largely defeated, and the labourers were left too generally to repine at the want of comfort and decency in their miserable hovels. The Land Commissioners had formally complained of this in a Minute which was on their Lordships' Table. They declared that the Land Act in this essential particular could not be rightly worked without some such legislative provisions as he (Lord O'Hagan) now submitted to the House. They pressed for effective penalties, to be easily enforced in the local Courts, and for such a system of inspection as might insure the execution of the will of the Legislature. He (Lord O'Hagan) need not argue as to the propriety of complying with these authoritative demands. It was demonstrated by the action of both Houses of Parliament, in providing for the labourers' wants, and by the necessity of dealing tenderly and kindly with them, which was recognized by all who felt for a struggling class and took an enlightened interest in the peace and prosperity of Ireland. The relations between the tenant farmers and their dependents were not always so cordial as might be desired, and the weaker parties should have the full protection which the law intended to afford. This Bill endeavoured to secure it by giving the Land Court full powers, equally in all cases of the settling of fair rents, to direct the bestowal of such cottages and allotments to labourers as might be deemed suitable, provided with due regard to the capacities and interests of all concerned, and by imposing a moderate but sufficient fine for persistent defiance of its wholesome jurisdiction. It was a necessary measure, proved to be so by the experience of a considerable period, and by the testimony of the Commissioners themselves. It had been introduced into the House of Commons by men of various Parties, and commanded the unanimous approval of that House; and he confidently hoped that it would be received with equal acceptance and approval by their Lordships. The Bill of the Commons was, in his opinion, imperfect, and might re-

1345
quire, for its effectual working, a fuller enforcement of the suggestions of the Commissioners on the part of the Government; but, so far as it went, it should be utilized, as, at this period of the Session, a completer measure could not be successfully introduced. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord O'Hagan.)
THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading; but to express the hope that the Bill would contain or preserve the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Land Act, such as the right of the landlord to indicate the site on which cottages should be erected.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the clause in the Act of last year had been found a perfect failure, like Sanitary, Artizans' Dwellings, and similar Acts, passed with the best intention, without full examination of complicated details. Many points of difficulty would arise in the working of this Bill as it stood. What was to become of the labourer under this Bill when the house was built? Must the tenant employ the labourer? At what wages? Must the labourer work for the tenant? And if he became a pauper, to whom was he chargeable; the farmer to whom he was engaged, or the landlord, or the Union? There -was a very curious addition made to last year's Bill—namely, that the house might be built on the demand of any labourer usually employed upon the farm, who might be a very good labourer, but an undesirable tenant. Penalties for non-compliance with the Court's order were to be summarily recovered at Petty Sessions. Now, knowing something of the difficulties of cottage-building, obtaining sites, &c, he, as a magistrate, would find great difficulty in enforcing such penalties against farmers. He did not object to the second reading, for he hoped that some means might be found for improving the labourers' dwellings in Ireland; but he trusted the Bill would receive further consideration from the promoters.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

PARCEL POST BILL.—(No. 223.)
(The Lord Thurlow.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD THURLOW,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was one of great importance and utility. It was the full realization of a hope long deferred, and supplied a general want. It was the result of the negotiations of many years between the Post Office and Railway Companies, the satisfactory conclusion of which was entirely due to the energy and powers of persuasion of Mr. Fawcett, who had succeeded in convincing them that the new Service would entail no losses on their shareholders, but quite the contrary. Railways would be paid for conveyance of parcels eleven-twentieths of the gross receipts of Post Office parcels so conveyed, and would be at liberty to carry on independent parcel traffic as at present. A Parcel Post had long existed on the Continent, and worked well, parcels being sent from France to Turkey, or from Sweden to Spain for about 2s. On the Continent it was easy of introduction, the railways being so largely owned by, or under the control of, the State. In this country it was necessary to reason with each Company, and convince it that it was ultimately for its advantage to adopt the new scheme. The details of the measure were not so simple as might be imagined, and required the creation of a good deal of machinery, which would probably delay the operation of the Bill till the beginning of next year. The weights and rates fixed in the Bill were subject to revision by the Post Office, as experience or public convenience might dictate; but in the event of any such revision the remuneration to Railway Companies would also be revised. Where agreements could not be arrived at, resort would be had to arbitration as provided in the Bill. These provisions would remain in force for 21 years after coming into operation, and would be renewed from time to time like other postal contracts. The Bill would enable this country at last to participate in all the benefits of the Universal Postal Union, and to join the Parcel Post Convention of Paris, of

1347
November, 1880. It would, no doubt, shortly become international, and we should be able to send parcels of 6 lb. to Paris for 2s. In this view the Bill empowered the Treasury to frame special Customs' enactments from time to time for such foreign parcels, and even to exempt them from duties, or to empower Post Office agents to act as Customs' officers in respect of such parcels. These three Schedules attached to the Bill showed its scope at a glance. The first was a list of Railway Companies, which had become parties to the arrangement. The second gave the weights and rates as fixed in the Bill for inland or home parcels—namely, under 1 lb. 3d., under 3 lb. 6d., under 5 lb. 9d., and under7 lb. 1s. The 3rd Schedule provided for the apportioning of remuneration among the various railways to be fixed by the Railway Clearing House Committee. Sundry other details remained for consideration, such as the bulk of the parcels of each weight, but were left for subsequent decision. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Thurlow.)
LORD BALFOURwished to know what effect the Bill would have upon the large Parcels Delivery Companies which were doing so useful a work at present. These Companies had expended large sums of money, and if they were to be subjected to the competition of a gigantic Public Department, with public funds at their back, and with special facilities granted by Act of Parliament to Railway Companies, it would be a very serious thing for them. The question he would like to ask was, whether Her Majesty's Government had considered the advisability of making any compensation to the managers or proprietors of these enterprizes; and, if not, whether they would object to the insertion of a clause which would give to these Companies the same facilities in regard to Railway Companies as the Government had taken to themselves? It seemed to him that in common fairness one or the other of these courses ought to be adopted. No doubt, the establishment of a Parcel Post would be a very great advantage to the community, even if some people might suffer in consequence; but it did seem to him
1348
that as the public were to get a very great convenience, that convenience should be obtained with as little hardship as possible to the Parcel Companies affected by the competition.
LORD THURLOWsaid, he was not authorized to make any statement in reply to the noble Lord's questions; but he would inform himself on the subject before Committee stage, in order that the points raised might then be dealt with. He believed, however, that the Postmaster General had taken the matter into consideration, and was of opinion that no real interests would be affected by the Bill, and that the great development of traffic which would take place would be for the benefit of all concerned.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 220.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 220.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Powers of Commissioners).
  On the Motion of Lord CARLINGFORD, Amendment made, in page 3, line 7, after ("thereof"), by leaving out ("and"), and inserting ("or").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provisions when governing body wholly or partly consists of members of town council, &c).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he proposed to omit the words "being not less than one-half," which would have the effect of leaving to the discretion of Commissioners the proportion of elected members who should sit in the Governing Bodies, instead of specifying that the Governing Bodies should consist to such extent, being not less than one-half, as the Commissioners should determine, of elected representatives. In supporting the Amendment, he might refer to Hutcheson's Hospital, Glasgow, on the Governing Body of which the municipal element was represented by the Lord Provost.

  1349
  The municipal element there was, therefore, 1 in 22; but under the Bill as it stood the proportion of the increase would be from 1 to 11. He suggested words which had not yet been printed, but which would make the provision run as follows:—
  "Provision shall be made in any scheme under this Act relating to such endowments that the governing body thereof, as altered by such scheme, shall consist to such extent, as the Commissioners shall determine, being not less than the existing proportion of the governing body of persons deriving their qualification as aforesaid."
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 33, leave out ("being not less than one-half").—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he was the more inclined to agree to the noble Duke's Amendment for this reason—which was a reason that applied not only to this particular Amendment, but to the whole Bill—namely, that he thought the House ought to be inclined to place great confidence in the Commission which was to be appointed for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect. That appeared to him to be at the root of all this kind of legislation. If they had not a reasonable confidence in the Commission that was to be appointed, there was no use in attempting legislation of this sort, and the effect of the noble Duke's Amendment would be to give a greater discretion to the Commission; whereas, as the Bill stood, they would be absolutely compelled, without any exercise of their own reason, to include in the Governing Bodies a fixed number of members of a certain sort, which it might not be necessary or advisable to do. The Amendment would not debar them from increasing the number, and, in his opinion, it was one that might be accepted.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he quite concurred in the Amendment of the noble Duke, but thought the noble Duke's whole case might be met by simply leaving out the words "being not less than one-half," and providing merely that the Governing Body should consist of the municipal element to such extent as the Commissioners should determine. That would express the noble
  1350
  Duke's meaning very clearly, and the other words would he unnecessary.
  LORD WATSONwas understood to say that he could not assent to the clause as it stood.
  Resolved in the negative.
  On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON, Amendments made, in page 4, lines 3 and 4, by leaving out after ("extent") the words ("being not less than one-third"); and in page 4, line 9, by leaving out ("frustrate") and inserting ("be inconsistent with"); and at end of clause by inserting ("or with the purposes of the endowment ").
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that, before they left this sub-section, he should like to ask whether there was any object in retaining the sub-section at all? As it stood, it left the proportion of the representative element entirely to the discretion of the Commissioners, and, of course, they would have the power in any case, so long as the sub-section compelled the Commissioners to make one-third of the Governing Body persons who were chosen for their representative character. Then he could see the object of the sub-section, but now he could not see its object.
  LORD WATSONsaid, he thought the clause laid upon the Commissioners a very grave duty, to introduce into trusts a certain number of elected persons, and that they should do so in all cases, except in those where the introduction of such persons would be inconsistent with the terms of the endowments.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, the clause was still applicable. All the change that had been made was to give the Commissioners greater discretion than they originally had.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Scope of Commission).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHmoved, in page 4, line 18, after ("libraries "), the omission of the following words:—
  "Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall be taken to compel the Commissioners to restrict any bursary, exhibition, scholarship, or other educational benefit, if attached to or tenable at any educational institution, to the children of persons resident in the locality where that institution exists."
  He was afraid that these words might

  1351
  induce the Commissioners to interfere in a contrary way to the letter and spirit of the endowments.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 18, after ("libraries"), leave out to end of Clause.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that, with regard to this Amendment, he thought there was at present quite a sufficient distinction between the two classes of educational benefits which it was proposed to give by this clause. According to one part of the clause, it would be the duty of the Commissioners, in re-organizing endowments, to have special regard, in making provision for secondary or technical education, to the benefit of the children of the locality to which the endowment belonged; while by the other part of the clause, as he understood it, the benefits of the trusts would be open to persons coming from a distance if it should be thought advisable.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, the clause appeared to him to take away with one hand what it gave with the other. He hoped it would be possible to make some alteration in the wording of the clause which would make its meaning clear, in the sense just explained by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF EOSEBERYsaid, he thought the clause was perfectly clear.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Endowments for apprenticeship fees, maintenance, and clothing to be deemed educational).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked that some explanation should be given with regard to the reasons for inserting the name of the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge. He did not wish to repeat what he had said the other evening; but it did seem rather hard to particularize this Society. He did not know any reason for bringing it prominently into this
  1352
  clause. Possibly there might be some reason for it; but till he heard what that reason was he moved that the name of that Society be struck out of the Bill.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 36, leave out from ("children") to ("shall") in line 38.—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he assured the noble Duke that the authors of the Bill had no wish whatever to insert the name of that particular Society; but they were instructed by the Lord Advocate that there might be some doubt about the matter which might possibly lead to litigation with very inconvenient results. It appeared that there was a peculiar wording of the deed constituting that Society which might possibly not bring it within the definition of the 1st clause of the Bill. It was simply for that reason, and for the sake of avoiding any inconvenient consequences, that the name of this Society had been mentioned in this clause; and that name had been introduced, he might add, with the assent of the Society itself. He could assure the noble Duke that that was the sole reason for the mention of the Society in this clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: It is not contrary to the wishes of the Society?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): No.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was satisfied with the explanation.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHmoved the addition of the following Proviso:—
  "Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to prevent a scheme relating to any such endowment from providing, if the governing body so desire, for the continued application of such endowments to the same purposes."
  The noble Duke said this provision was similar to that inserted in the corresponding clause of the English Act.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 6, line 39, after ("endowments"), add ("Provided that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to prevent a scheme

  1353
  relating to any such endowment from providing, if the governing body so desire, for the continued application of such endowments to the same purposes.")—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the objection he saw to the proposal of his noble Friend was that, as he read the Bill, its object was to bring these Institutions within the power and purview of the Commissioners, while, by the words now proposed to be added, they gave the Governing Body power to say—"We will not be under it." This Proviso, indeed, would nullify the powers of the Commissioners.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he concurred in the view of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). The words proposed to be added would give the Governing Bodies the power of veto upon the action of the Commissioners. That appeared to him to be entirely inconsistent with the principle of the proposed legislation.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Vested interests).
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he proposed to insert in page 7, line 5, the words, "or by any Act of Parliament already passed as in interpretation or in pursuance thereof," so that the latter part of the clause would read thus—
  "And shall provide that no funds now applied in terms of the founders' directions or by any Act of Parliament already passed as in interpretation or in pursuance thereof, to free elementary education shall be diverted to any other purpose except to the extent to which such funds are manifestly in excess of the requirements for the purpose of free elementary education of the localities to which they belong."
  The Act passed in 1836 with regard to the formation of schools under the Heriot Trust in Edinburgh brought within the benefits of the Trust the children of burgesses of that city, and by a subsequent Act burgesses were defined as persons who had been two years resident within the boundary of the city, and by that interpretation a large number of children had received free education, to the benefit of themselves and of the town; while, if it had not been for these schools, the parents of those children, who were respectable people, would have had to undergo the
  1354
  humiliation of pauperizing themselves by applying for relief from the Parochial Board.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 5, after ("directions") insert ("or by any Act of Parliament already passed as in interpretation or in pursuance thereof."—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD WATSONsaid, the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke was a very serious one; and if effect were given to it, it would very largely interfere with the object of the promoters of the Bill. He had very great respect for the opinions of the noble Duke upon all subjects connected with Scotland; but having given considerable attention to the matters dealt with in this Bill, he had come to the conclusion that the Amendment was one which ought not to be accepted by the House. The proposal in the clause was that, so far as any founder of any endowment for an educational purpose in Scotland had laid it down as his will and desire that it should be applied for the purpose of free primary education, that wish should be respected and carried out with this proviso—that funds which were manifestly in excess of what was necessary for the wants of the locality benefited by the endowment were to be dealt with as free funds, and applied to the purpose of secondary education. The proposal of the noble Duke was not merely to respect the will of the founder, but to take into account, in dealing with those endowments, every particular Act of Parliament which had been obtained on the basis of what was supposed to be the founders' wishes. It might be that those statutory powers were in entire accordance with the will of the testator; and if that were so, there were provisions within the four corners of the Bill for giving effect to them. On the other hand, if those statutory powers which had been obtained were not strictly consistent with the will of the founder, or were inconsistent with the intentions of the founder, it was intended that the Commissioners under this Bill should have control, and that they should restore them to the proper course of administration, and apply them according to the founder's intentions. He ventured to say that, as the Bill now stood, no institution need fear a diversion of funds from any purpose fairly

  1355
  contemplated by the founder; but if the funds had been applied in a manner otherwise than to the purposes contemplated by the founder, in such a case it would be for the Commissioners to revise past legislation, and prepare a scheme consistent with what they conceived to be the will of the founder. Ample provision was made for bringing the matter before either House of Parliament by means of a Motion, and it was impossible to say they could be taken by surprise, or complain that they were unfairly or unreasonably dealt with. If the Amendment were accepted, its effect would simply be to strike out of the Bill two of the largest and richest foundations in Scotland—Hutcheson's Hospital in Glasgow, and Heriot's Hospital in Edinburgh—and affirm really what there was no evidence of, that those Acts of Parliament which had been obtained in recent years did represent the entire will of the founder. Everyone conversant with educational matters in Scotland, and who had read the Reports of the Commissions of 1869 and 1879 as to the constitution of these Trusts, and the application of their funds, must come to the conclusion that there was ample matter for inquiry and investigation by a Body of Commissioners, and that was all that was now proposed to take place. The result of the Commissioners' labours would be either to condemn or support the present application of the funds. After that the Trustees had still an appeal to their Lordships' House, or the other House of Parliament; and he thought it was impossible to say that the interests of those parties were in any way tampered with or disregarded.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, that the noble and learned Lord had really left him nothing to say. The noble and learned Lord had spoken upon the subject with much more authority than he could; and after his observations he could hardly think that their Lordships would agree to an Amendment which would give to an Act of Parliament the character of the laws of the Medes and Persians, and that not merely to any Public Act of Parliament, but any Private Act which might have been obtained by any institution in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord referred to Hutcheson's Hospital, another educa-
  1356
  tional institution in Scotland, almost as great and wealthy as Heriot's Hospital in Edinburgh. The extraordinary result of the Amendment of the noble Duke upon the former institution would be that, in spite of its own Act, it would be brought within the Amendment. There was a provision in Hutcheson's Hospital Act of 1872, to the effect that nothing therein contained should be deemed to exempt the mortification from the provisions of any general Act relating to charitable and educational institutions in Scotland which might hereafter be passed by Parliament. Therefore, the effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be to entirely upset the arrangements and objects of Hutcheson's Hospital, and, against the will of the Trustees, to subject them to the provisions of the Amendment. He could not think their Lordships would treat an Act of Parliament, which was passed within the last few years, with so slight an amount of consideration; and he was sure they would have confidence in the Commission which was to be appointed in dealing with questions of this character.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that after what had been said he would not press the Amendment. He did not see, however, that there was any more sanctity in an Act passed in 1872 than in one passed in 1836.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Interests of particular classes to be kept in view).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he rose to move a Proviso to follow this clause, the object of which was to deal with the cases in which the applicants for the benefit of educational endowments might exceed in number the vacant places to be given away. His new clause would require that, in framing schemes, the Commissioners should provide that in making selections from among those who were eligible to receive the advantages of educational endowments, due regard should be had to merit, and it indicated that the means of ascertaining merit should be by examination. He did not, however, propose absolutely to tie the hands of the

  1357
  Commissioners; and, therefore, he added after the word "examination" the words "or in such other manner as they shall determine."
  Amendment moved,
  At the end of Clause 15 add the following Proviso:—("Provided also, that in selecting children from amongst those eligible for the benefits of such endowment, due regard shall he paid to merit as ascertained by examination or otherwise as may seem to the Commissioners desirable.")—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Provision for future alteration of schemes).
  On the Motion of Lord CARLINGFORD, Amendment made, in page 8, line 28, after ("any"), by leaving out ("orders") and inserting ("provisional order").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Special case to court of session on questions of law).
  On the Motion of Lord CARLINGFORD, Amendment made, in page 11, line 11, after ("scheme"), by leaving out ("feels") and inserting ("feel").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 239.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.