Lords Sitting of 5 July 1889

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—Consolidated Fund (No. 3); Secretary for Scotland.
The Earl of Harrington—took the oath.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL,
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 144.)
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Earl of Minto to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., for the consideration of the Bribery (Public Bodies) Prevention Bill, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR.

  HER ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCESS LOUISE OF WALES.
  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Messages of yesterday considered (according to order).
  EARL CADOGAN, in rising to move, "That humble Addresses of Thanks and Concurrence be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Addresses" said:—My Lords, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who is in attendance on Her Majesty at Windsor, it has devolved upon me to invite your Lord-
  1546
  ships to agree to humble Addresses to be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in any measures which may be proposed for giving effect to Her Majesty's wishes as expressed in the Gracious Messages which have just been read. On previous occasions of a similar nature your Lordships have shown an anxiety to take any opportunity which may offer itself of giving further proof of that loyalty to the Throne and that attachment to the person of the Queen and Her family of which Her Majesty has made Gracious mention. My Lords, the Gracious Messages now under consideration deal with two subjects distinct in themselves, but identical in their connection with the welfare and prosperity of the Royal Family, and I venture also to say identical in the interest which they have excited in every one of your Lordships. With reference to the first Message, it cannot be doubted that this House will readily assent to any proposal for enabling the eldest son of the Heir Apparent to the Throne adequately to maintain the exalted position to which he is called, and to prepare himself for the performance of those great and important duties which lie before him. The second Gracious Message refers to an auspicious event, the announcement of which has evoked the strongest expressions of satisfaction from all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. We rejoice to think that the projected marriage of Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise of Wales with the Earl of Fife—prompted, as we have been informed that it is, by the strong and enduring tie of mutual affection—offers the brightest promise for the future of Her Royal Highness and her consort; and I think I may venture, on behalf of this

  1547
  House, to express the confident hope that the alliance, contracted under such favourable auspices, may prove a continual blessing and a source of lasting happiness to Her Majesty and Her family. I beg, therefore, to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty that your Lordships will cheerfully concur in the measures which may be proposed for the consideration of the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I ask permission of your Lordships to second the Motion of the noble Earl, and I will follow his example in saying the very few words I have to say with reference to both Messages at once. With regard to the making of due provision for Prince Albert Victor, I do not think there will be the slightest hesitation on your Lordships' part. The Prince has arrived at an age when due provision ought to be made for him. I think for the first time, by the liberality of the Queen, he will be enabled to live under his own roof. He has already travelled much. He has not only mixed in society, but he has taken his part—a becoming part—in the public functions of this country. He has done meritorious service in the profession to which he belongs. With regard to the other Address, referring to the marriage of the Princess Louise, it has been, partly from my age and partly from other circumstances, my good fortune to move or second many Addresses of a like character. I cannot help remembering that I had the honour 26 years ago of moving such an Address with regard to the illustrious parents of the Princess Louise. On that occasion I referred to what my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal has also mentioned, the sanction which these marriages have always received from the personal affection and esteem of the contracting parties. I believe this is eminently the case in the present instance. There is not only a union of hearts and feelings, but the marriage has been brought about by long personal knowledge, which is the best augury for the future. The question of Supply rests mainly with the other House, and we look to the Government for guidance in the matter. I have no doubt whatever that if a proper allowance is made your Lordships will most cordially concur in it. At the same time, on behalf of the noble Lords
  1548
  behind me, I may say that we thoroughly join with the Lord Privy Seal in his wishes for every possible happiness to the illustrious personages concerned.
  Resolutions agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Addresses to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (LINLITHGOW WATER) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, and Acts amending the same, relating to Linlithgow Water—Was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian).
  Moved, That the Sessional Order of the 5th of March last,
  "That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Friday the 10th day of May next"
  be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Ker, M. Lothian).
  THE EARL OF MORLEYobserved that the Bill should, according to the Sessional Order, have been read a first time on May 10. It was now July 5. The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, and it was of great importance that the Sessional Order should be complied with, so that opponents, if there were any, could have ample opportunity of being heard. Last year two Bills, emanating from the Scotch Office, had been introduced long after the date fixed by the Sessional Order. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland must make out a strong case to induce the House to dispense with the Order. The Bill, he was informed, had been settled and sent to the Scotch Office on June 1, and he should he glad to know what had caused the subsequent delay. The Office must have their Bills ready in time. If they did not have them ready, it was not fair to place upon the House the responsibility for any evils which might result from the failure of the Bill to pass; whereas the responsibility rested entirely with them who had not got the Bill ready for introduction at the time fixed by the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANthought it would be time for the noble Earl to repudiate responsibility when he (Lord Lothian) attempted to saddle it upon

  1549
  him. He was as anxious as the noble Earl that the Forms of the House should be maintained. The object of the Provisional Orders was to enable districts to put in force the provisions of the Land Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land, and there were statutory forms which had to be gone through in this case. The question was a somewhat complicated one. There were questions of compensation for land taken, and there had been some difficulty in adjudicating. The petition had been before the Sheriff for six weeks, and he did not suppose their Lordships would consider that too long a period, In his opinion, there had been no unnecessary delay on the part of the Sheriff. As to the delay which the noble Earl suggested had taken place at the Scottish Office, the question of compensation was finally adjusted, and came before the Scottish Office on the 1st of June. On the 3rd it was referred to the Lord Advocate in order that the Provisional Order should be adjusted. On the 17th of June, the Provisional Order was received back from the Lord Advocate. On the 20th it was signed by himself (the Secretary for Scotland), and on the 1st of July it was laid upon the Table of this House, and read a first time. Owing, however, to an informant it was not entered upon the Minutes, and the Notice of Motion for the suspension of the Standing Order was given yesterday. He thought he had said enough to show that there had been no unnecessary delay in his Department. As to the necessity for passing the Provisional Order, the Board of Supervision had summoned the Local Authority of Linlithgow before the Court of Session to compel them to provide a sufficient water supply, and they had only consented to suspend further action on the understanding that the Local Authorities should apply for a Provisional Order. It was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the public health, that the water supply of Linlithgow should be improved this year, and he, therefore, hoped their Lordships would agree to the Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think that the noble Earl is perfectly right in calling attention to this matter. As a rule, no doubt, the Standing Orders that have been passed by the House
  1550
  should be adhered to. It is most important that the opinion should not get abroad that it really does not signify at what date these Bills are brought up because the Standing Orders can be dispensed with. Therefore, I should be inclined on principle to vote with my noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) if he thought it necessary to go to a Division. But after the statement we have heard from the noble Lord as to the importance of this Bill, and considering that all parties concerned are in agreement in desiring it to become law, it is probable that your Lordships may consent without a Division to allowing the suspension of the Standing Order in this instance, on the very clear understanding that it is not to be taken as a precedent for the needless disregard of the Standing Orders of the House.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that after hearing the noble Lord he would not divide the House against the Bill; but the noble Lord must not take this as a precedent, and he trusted that in future years the noble Marquess would instruct the Scotch Office to have their Bills ready in proper time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 1a accordingly; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 145.)

  LAND TRANSFER BILL. (No. 8,)
  Order of the Day for further proceeding, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the object of the first Amendment, which stands in my name, is to remove from the Bill that portion of it which enforces compulsory registration in cases other than of pure and bonâ fide sales. The Bill as it stands imposes not, perhaps, registration, but registration fees in every case of succession to property. The Amendment which I propose limits the operation of the Bill to those cases where a sale, as we ordinarily understand that transaction, is carried out. Referring, as I suppose I am in order in referring, to what took place last week, it was attempted to show that I was objecting to a cheap transfer of land. My Lords, I was not objecting to the cheap transfer of land; I was objecting to the very great cost which, as it seems to me, would be imposed by the machinery provided in this Bill; and I venture to think that whatever may be said upon

  1551
  this subject, no one who has thought how the Bill would work can be satisfied that the Bill will be one which can be cheaply put into motion. The insurance fees may be small; the office fees may be small; but behind those there lie the expenses which, unhappily, attend all transactions of this description. I admit that recent legislation has done much to diminish the cost of those transactions—to diminish, or endeavour to diminish, the charges of solicitors, and to that no one can object; but what I, for one, object to, is imposing upon the succession to property the same trouble and expense (be it little or great, it seems to me, does not really affect the question) as that which attends the case of bonâ fide sale. A great deal of the land of this country never comes into the market at all. No doubt there are cases in which land exchanges hands more than once in the course of a single generation, but that represents but a small part of the landed property of this country. The greater part of that landed property is not made the subject of sale, and I do not see why when it passes from one member of a family to another, either by will or by settlement, the person inheriting should be forced to bear his share of the cost of a general registration scheme. What I, therefore, propose is to omit from the operation of this Bill all persons who may succeed by descent or by settlement. I think your Lordships will be of opinion that if the scheme is one which is wise and good, the public at large will not be slow to avail themselves of it in future when it works satisfactorily. If any advantage is to be gained by the owners of land by putting their titles on the register, they will be eager to do so. If the scheme is so advantageous as its authors represent, the landed interest of this country are not so insensible to their own interests as to refrain from availing themselves of the machinery so provided. But I cannot understand (and I ventured the other day to quote the opinion of Lord Thring as supporting that view) why owners should be compelled to deal with their property in a way which they do not desire. If any great public advantage were to be gained from it something might be said, but then the cost should fall on the public, and not on these
  1552
  unhappy victims of experimental legislation. I do not want to repeat anything I said last week; but I think very few will deny that the sale and transfer of land is an operation not unattended with expense, and it would be quite proper to impose on those who engage in such transactions the cost of placing their land upon the register. But I do not see why land held from generation to generation which does not come into the market at all should be subjected to the harassing visits of registration officials, or why the owner should be called upon the moment he succeeds to produce his title. That seems to me to be utterly at variance with the principles of justice. It was said the other night that, after all, the cost would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. That is an argument which is hardly worth seriously combating, because anybody who knowns the principles on which our finance is administered knows that all our Law Courts are practically self-supporting, and, though the salaries of these officials will be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, care will be taken that the fees bear the proper proportion to the salaries and expenses. Individual transactions may, no doubt, be carried on with light fees, but the expenses taken as a whole will be considerable. Lord Cairns estimated the cost of each transaction at between £3 and £4, and taking into account the enormous number of transactions, I think your Lordships will see that that will place a very considerable tax upon the landed interest. I would remind their Lordships of the words of Lord Cairns in 1875 on this subject, when he said he for one was afraid of forcing on the people of tins country a system which might excite intense dissatisfaction and lead to a sweeping away altogether of the new system of registration. I ask your Lordships to limit the operation of the Bill to cases of bonâ fide sale and transfer, and not to make the whole landed interest the subject of so serious an experiment. These are not times when the landed interest can bear any additional burden. I think as a matter of common sense and justice we ought to be quite sure that this system is for the general public good before we force it upon landed proprietors. Are you afraid that your system itself will not be accepted voluntarily? If so, what right

  1553
  have you to impose it on the country? If you are satisfied that the scheme is a good one and will be accepted, then why compel people to do that which their own interests will prompt them to do?
  Amendment moved, Clause 3, page 1, line 23, to insert after "conveyance" the words "not being a settlement."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I trust your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The discussion affords an illustration of the inconvenience of discussing at this stage what is really a question of detail. If this Amendment had been discussed at an earlier period there would have been no difficulty in giving the noble Earl every information as to what the exact amount of the charge and the machinery that would be adopted and the intervention of the officials would be—things which he seems to assume would be harassing and inconvenient. The noble Earl introduced, once or twice, words which I understand have been used with great effect in speaking to noble Lords outside the House, but which have not been distinctly formulated in the House—I mean the necessity which it appears noble Lords have been assured they would be under of placing their titles on the register. That is an entire mistake. There is no such necessity under the Bill. A mere possessory title will simply prove that a person is in possession, and the machinery by which that can be accomplished is of the simplest possible character. Of course, if each of the Amendments is accepted, the Bill will ultimately be reduced to nothing, which probably is what the noble Earl desires, but it is hardly fair, after the Third Reading, to introduce Amendments which really go the whole usefulness of the Bill. Of course, I do not mean to say that the Bill might not go on if the present Amendments were adopted, but the effect and value of a system of registration of land is that it should be exhaustive, and if your Lordships exclude everything except what has passed by actual sale and transfer, a great part of the usefulness of a register would be gone because a great deal of land does not go into the market at all. So that you would be really legislating for a part of the country, and not for
  1554
  the whole. I do not wish my Lords to discuss this matter at great length. It seems to me that the objections of the noble Earl are really aimed at the Bill itself, and not merely at this part of it.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack one question with regard to a remark which fell from him. He said that under this Bill placing a title on the register would entail no considerable expense.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me, but I did not say so.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I understood the noble Lord to say that the costs, whatever they were, which were entailed by settlement, would not be excessive. But am I not right in assuming that those costs, whatever they would be, would be tantamount to the expenses which would be gone to by an owner who wished to get out a bill of sale or advertisements with regard to putting up the property for auction.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should say certainly not. The noble Duke has quite misunderstood what I did say. I said that so far from placing his title upon the register, it was not in the smallest degree necessary for a land-owner to do so. There would simply be the fact of possession.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I would like to point out to the noble Lord opposite one effect of his Amendment which I do not think he at present contemplates. His Amendment would not only apply to the first putting of land into a settlement after registration had been made compulsory, but would apply always hereafter to all cases of settlement. I can hardly think that the noble Lord would contend, when once land has been put upon the Register, that, if afterwards in respect of that land a settlement were made, that settlement could not take effect by putting the new owner on the register in place of the person at the time on the register. That is a matter that could not involve any expense in its working, and if you have merely the limitation proposed by the noble Earl, you would have persons, claiming through somebody not on the register at all, who yet would be compelled themselves to register. I think the noble Lord must mean his Amendment to refer to the first putting upon the

  1555
  register, and not to subsequent dealings with land.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think that, strictly speaking, I am not entitled to reply to the noble Lord, but I would like to point out that if everybody would gain by registering, there is no need of compulsion.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think the noble Earl follows my point, which is this:—That when the land is once on the register you ought to compel the registration of all subsequent dispositions with the land, otherwise you destroy the value of any system of registration altogether.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: What I understand the noble and learned Lord to argue is this:—That if the Amendment of my noble Friend is passed land once on the register can be transferred otherwise than by the register. But it is perfectly clear that if land is on the register there is no objection to its being transferred on the register, and my noble Friend's Amendment will not affect that, unless it is proved that it is more expensive to transfer land on the register than to transfer it by the ordinary system of conveyance. If the land is on the register already, there is nothing in my noble Friend's Amendment to prevent its being transferred on the register, nor would anybody wish to transfer it otherwise than on the register. All that we complain of is the compulsory registration, in the first instance, on the register. Then, the noble and learned Lord said that it was not contemplated to compel persons to place their titles on the register, but that all that they were required to register was a possessory title. Well, even for the registration of a possessory title you must have maps and descriptions, which would entail a very heavy expense upon the present owners. Of course it does not fall distinctly upon the present owner, but it falls on the successor to the present owner, succeeding by a will or by a settlement which he is compelled to register. Then the noble and learned Lord says you are only compelled to register a possessory title. That is perfectly true, but supposing a sale is contemplated and the only advantage in registering is to get a good title, you really must go in for an absolute title, because the purchaser, knowing that
  1556
  you had to register a title of some kind, would insist on your registering an absolute title. To go back to the Amendment of my noble Friend, I do not see the difficulty that my noble and learned Friend anticipates. If the property is on the register and it is transferred it will be transferred on the register, and there is nothing in my noble Friend's Amendment to prevent that. The whole point of the Amendment is that it precludes the necessity of registering in the first instance.
  On Question their Lordships divided:—Contents 93; Not Contents 119.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have to move another Amendment, the object of which is the omission of Clause 33. I do not know whether your Lordships are anxious that the discussion should be prolonged upon this question, but I think it is important that the view of the House should be expressed upon this and the other clauses relating to real property. By retaining this clause your Lordships will be in considerable difficulty upon this part of the question of land transfer. This matter is one purely within the law of real property, and, therefore, I should ask your Lordships to omit this clause in the Bill on the ground that it alters the law of real property. The alterations of the law of real property are so wide, so exhaustive, and so entirely outside the proper object of the Bill, that a provision like this ought really to form no part whatever of the measure. When the Bill was originally framed, this Clause 33, as far as I remember, formed part of Part 4 of the Bill. Whether that was so or not, I think the noble and learned Lord will confirm my view that this is a grave alteration of the law of real property, and, therefore, I ask your Lordships to say that, being an alteration of the law of real property, it ought to form no part of a Bill dealing with the transfer of land.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 33."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am unable to adopt this Amendment. If every part of the Bill is to be expunged which deals with the law of real property, I need not tell your Lordships that a very considerable part of it will be taken away. Although,

  1557
  in a certain sense I should not dispute that if the registration be established there will be alteration in the law of real property, yet some alteration is essential in order to facilitate the carrying out of what is proposed, and it is for that purpose of facility only that this clause is introduced. I quite understand the objection to the law of real property being substantially altered, and I accept the issue in that sense. I cannot adopt the Amendment for the omission of the clause.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I cannot agree that this in any way alters the law of real property. I think it is a very useful clause. It is a matter strictly in conjunction with the other provisions of the Bill, and it only implies this, that where you have what is called a base fee, the owner may apply to have his title confirmed. It is a most inconvenient form of title, which is only in existence as long as the heirs of the tenant in tail are in existence. When those heirs fail the title comes to an end. This clause only provides that the person who is the owner of the base fee and is on the register may apply to have his title confirmed, and may have his estate in fee simple entered if no objection is taken by any person entitled in remainder or reversion. That seems to be an extremely convenient thing for an owner of a base fee. Of course he cannot touch anybody's rights. That is all that this clause provides, and it really does not at all substantially alter the law of real property. I cannot help thinking that this is an unfortunate occasion on which to raise the issue, because it could be taken directly on the alterations made in the fourth part of the Bill. But if your Lordships will think out the whole of the fourth part of the Bill, you will see that this clause might be made to serve a very useful purpose.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Under these circumstances I will ask your Lordships to permit the Amendment to be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I rise to move an Amendment, the object of which is provide that where a person has been improperly registered with a possessory title anyone entitled
  1558
  to the possession or to the receipt of the rents of the property may apply for the correction of the register. The clauses on the subject of rectification, as they now stand, do not apply to merely possessory titles. It is necessary to do this; because, although the mere fact of a possessory title being registered would not by itself operate to defeat or prejudice any prior unregistered right, it might do so in the course of time, by the currency of the Statute of Limitations in favour of the registered title; and a wrong registration, if it could not be rectified, might in the meantime be a serious cloud upon the true owner's title.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: gladly accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: My Lords, the next Amendment stands in my name. I propose to ask your Lordships to omit Clauses 74 to 82 inclusive.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would my noble Friend allow me to ask whether he would be satisfied to confine his Amendment to Clause 74, as in case of its rejection I have an Amendment to move on Clause 75.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may inform the noble Marquess that there are Amendments upon some of these clauses.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: The noble Marquess invites me to limit the Amendment to Clause 74, and I will adopt the suggestion. But in moving the omission of Clause 74, I have to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the three following clauses are bound up with it, and therefore the omission of the clause will, of course, involve the omission of Clauses 76, 77, and 78, which are all dependent upon it. While the earlier part of the Bill deals with land in the case of intestacy, Clause 74 deals with land left by will and vests it in executors. These clauses, from 74 to 83, constitute Part 4 of the Bill, with regard to alterations of the law of real property. They have nothing whatever to do with alterations in the law with respect to the registration of land, except so far as those who have drawn the Bill have chosen to work as it were one question into the other. The alterations of the law of real property are of two descriptions. First, this part of the

  1559
  Bill deals with land in the case of intestacy, and next it vests real estate left by will in the hands of the executors of the last owner. Then Clause 75 involves the distribution among all the heirs if there is an intestacy the same as with regard to personalty; and I think Clauses 81 and 82 involve the substitution of an estate in fee-simple for an estate in tail. The clause which I am now asking your Lordships to reject is Clause 74, which vests real property left by will in the executors of the last owner. Your Lordships' attention ought to be called to this essential difference between this clause and the succeeding part of the measure to which we, I think, equally object—that whereas the others are dealing practically with cases of land where there is an intestacy this deals with land where there is a will. As the law stands at the present moment, the person who has inherited landed estate under a will comes into possession immediately the breath has left the body of the previous owner; but if this Bill passes the property will rest in the hands of executors, and the successors may be kept out of it for a year or more while they are proving the will, and he will be unable to exercise any control over his own property. That is the law now with regard to personalty, and, of course, with regard to personalty it is perfectly unobjectionable; but your Lordships are acquainted with the operation of the law with regard to landed property, and the difficulties in connection with its management. The management of landed property is an onerous task; and I would ask your Lordships to consider how it is possible for executors to satisfactorily discharge the work of managing real estate for twelve months? They could not manage it for any length of time in a satisfactory manner. A noble Lord has brought in a clause giving power to the rightful owner to compel the executors to hand over the property to him after the lapse of a year. But, during a year, many questions may arise which executors could not well decide with regard to labour in keeping the place up, receiving notices from tenants renewing leases, repairs of farms, &c. All those matters are to be left in the hands of executors possibly hostile to the new owner, and whose sole care may possibly have been to do nothing, at any rate, which might
  1560
  compromise themselves. My Lords, I do not wish to trouble the House unnecessarily, but I think this is a subject which requires to be fully considered. I would, however, refer to one matter, and that is Sub-section 3 of Clause 74, which provides that probate and letters of administration may be granted in respect of real estate only, although there is no personal estate. If your Lordships will read Clause 80 you will see it states that land is not to be made the subject of Probate Duty or Legacy Duty; but I would ask what chance there is at the present day of land remaining long free from Probate Duty if probate has to be taken out. This is not merely the thin end of the wedge towards placing a Probate Duty on land; it is half the wedge. There is already a disposition to tax land upon succession in every manner possible. Of all the burdensome forms of taxation with reference to succession, a duty upon land in these days of agricultural depression is the most onerous. Your Lordships will agree that that form of taxation is certainly the most burdensome, and if you allow this clause to pass you will have opened the door to still greater difficulties. I ask your Lordships, on those grounds, whether you are not placing landed property in a position which will make it impossible for it to be properly managed during the period that executors may hold it, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will reject the clause.
  Amendment moved, page 35, to leave out Clause 74.—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I confess I have not an absolute knowledge of the bearing and scope of the whole of this Bill; but it seems to me that Clauses 81 and 82 will involve a great change in the settlement of land. By those clauses the son of a tenant for life would have the right to sell the land and heirlooms of an estate, because he would have an absolute reversion of both. As your Lordships are aware, with regard to what are called heirlooms, if a father makes a settlement with his son, upon that son coming to the title on his father's death he gets a life interest in the property only. That property would be of a twofold description: it is land and it is heirlooms. When the successor has a

  1561
  son in turn, and that son comes of age, he has a remainder under the settlement which was created by the father and grandfather. As your Lordships are aware, that son, when he comes of age, becomes absolute possessor of the heirlooms subject to his father's life interest in them. But that is not the case with regard to land; the son has to live beyond his father in order to succeed. With regard to the heirlooms, the son can sell those heirlooms to anybody the day he comes of age, whether his father likes it or not, subject, of course, to his father's enjoyment of them during his life. But he cannot do so with regard to land. Your Lordships are aware that one of the customs most observed is that when the son comes of age, in consideration of the income given to him, he concedes his right, being given a life interest as entailed heir. Now, the operation of this Bill is to put land in exactly the same position as heirlooms, so that when the son comes of ago, after this Bill has passed, he would, in the natural course of things, succeed absolutely not only to the reversion of the heirlooms, but to the absolute reversion of the land. A son will not be in a position to make terms with his son. There will be nothing to offer him, and the son will naturally say—"Why should I settle this property? I have got this property. I can sell it to A, B, C, or D to-morrow, subject only to your life interest in it." Therefore, in the nature of things he is not going to settle it. My Lords, we should be clear in our minds whether we desire that that should be the state of things, because I think your Lordships will see we are embarking on a change, and one which I regard as of great magnitude. Then, with regard to another point, your Lordships are aware that by Lord Cairns' Act of 1882 a tenant for life was given absolute power to sell the land—that is to say, he was practically made sole trustee of the property, and in him was placed a discretion as to sale, as to price, and, in fact, generally under the wording of the Act; but a power was reserved, and that power was with regard to the sale of the mansion-house. If my proposition is right with regard to the position of the heirlooms, and after the passing of this Bill of the land, the position
  1562
  will be very different to what it is now, when the owner cannot sell the house. The son, when he comes of age, if he does not like to oblige his father will say—"It is all very well, but I can sell the property, and I will sell it." This may not be au arrangement which will do any harm, but it is a change which will entail very great difficulties. I venture to suggest that it is sowing seeds of difficulties which I cannot see my way out of.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess has wandered somewhat from the particular matter now under discussion. No doubt it is the object and intention of this Bill by subsequent clauses, which are not at present under discussion, to make personalty and realty subject to the same laws, so that you may do with regard to realty what you can do with personalty, and vice versâ. That is the whole object of the Bill. With regard to the clause under discussion, the noble Marquess has drawn a picture of evil consequences which will result from it, and has suggested that the person entitled may be kept out of possession by the acts of ill conditioned executors or representatives. I cannot agree with him. It is all very well for the noble Marquess to use the phrase he did as to the persons inheriting coming into possession; but it is not accurate, because the landed estate passes to the executors. I do not think the evil consequences anticipated by the noble Marquess are likely to arise. Difficulties have arisen in cases where the land is held under lease. Has the noble Marquess not experienced those difficulties when land happens to be so held? There is a provision here intended to deal with those difficulties. The executors may assent instantly to possession being taken, and may allow the person entitled to go into his own house. These difficulties are familiar to those connected with the law. Ever since I have known the profession everybody has been craving for a real representative at the time of death by which the difficulty might be met, while determining who is really entitled under such testamentary dispositions. Recent legislation has done much to diminish these difficulties, and in that respect, my Lords, I think this will be a valuable

  1563
  alteration of the law as regards a very large portion of the land in this country held under lease.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: The whole policy of Parliament for many years has been to extinguish leaseholds and qualified interests in land, to which the noble and learned Lord now points as an example to be imitated. It is my belief that the difficulty intended to be met by the sweeping changes of this clause has been very much diminished by the beneficial operation of the recent alterations in the law of real property to which I have referred. I have a question to put to those who are responsible for this Bill. The point was not raised before the Select Committee, because my attention was not then called to it. The question I want to put is—how, in future, estates are to be carried on until probate is granted? You are now admitting that landed property is to be subject to the same law as personalty. Suppose a person succeeds to a large estate in the funds, the money accumulates and no great harm is done in case of delay in granting probate. But the case is different with respect to landed property if the successor is kept out. Landed property is subject to waste, mismanagement, and a variety of incidents; and the question I want to put is this—suppose a will is litigated, how is a landed estate to be carried on for any considerable time until probate is granted? You are to vest freehold landed property in future in the representatives. The executors are to become representatives of the realty. I want to know, in case of difficulties arising which may involve litigation, what is to be the position of the real estate during that period? Certainly the estate would be subject to very great injury. The heir would probably be kept out of the estate, and I do not myself see how it could be properly carried on. Recent legislation, as the Lord Chancellor has said, has done much to diminish the difficulties of dealing with these estates; so as to avoid serious risk of maladministration. The administration of real property has really nothing whatever to do with the question of land transfer, which is the subject of this Bill, and this clause is not necessary. I would ask the authors of the Bill to consider what would happen in the case of a will being litigated, perhaps for
  1564
  years, the estate being tied up, and the persons responsible being prevented from doing things absolutely indispensable for the proper management of the estate.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, so far from there being any new difficulty created in the case of a will of doubtful construction, there will be less difficulty under this Bill than in the present state of the law. If there be disputed questions as to the succession to real estate, and the matter is sharply litigated, it may remain open for years; the difficulty which the noble Earl has mentioned, is, therefore, inherent in the present state of the law. It might be possible, no doubt, by the exercise of the powers of the Court in which the litigation took place to appoint a receiver or to adopt other measures to provide for the management of the estate during the litigation. All that would happen upon this Bill coming into operation would be that the proper Court would grant probate or letters of administration. It might, in the case which the noble Earl supposes, grant temporary administration with the same powers as belong to an executor or to a general administrator. Having said that in answer to the noble Earl's difficulty, I should like to give your Lordships any assistance that I can in regard to the operation of the clause in question, and that the more impartially, because I have never individually been so strongly impressed as some others with the necessity for such a change. As this has been done by the Select Committee, I think it ought to be considered in another place; and I, for one, cannot undertake the responsibility of wrecking the Bill, in this last stage, for the sake of any opinion which I may entertain upon this point; especially as I think there is no sufficient reason for feeling great alarm regarding the effect of the Bill as it stands. The effect of the Bill as it stands is simply this: Upon the death, it is proposed to vest the property in the executor or the administrator. That seems at first sight to be open to two objections—that you may keep the real owner out of his property, and that you may impose upon the executor or the administrator a new responsibility which may deter him from accepting that office. I will take the last objection first, because that would

  1565
  be a very serious objection, indeed, if nothing were done by the Bill to provide against it; but the 77th clause provides that from the very beginning, from the moment of the death, the executors or administrators, if they prefer devolving the duties and burdens and whole management of the property upon the person beneficially entitled to it, may do so. They need not undertake the trust or the responsibilities, as to the real estate, unless they choose, but if they find that the beneficial owner is willing to take possession of the estate, subject to the legal burdens affecting it, the 77th clause enables them to put him on the Register from the very beginning. Therefore, from these duties, which at first sight seem so onerous, they can relieve themselves whenever they please. Then there is provision made for winding up their administration, in the case of their accepting the duty, and being registered, in the first instance. At the end of the first year, the persons beneficially entitled may claim to be put upon the Register instead of the executors, and they are permitted, if necessary, to go to the Courts for that purpose. Unless some good reason can be shown to the contrary, an order for that purpose will be made. Then the question is asked, where the property is not sooner transferred, what is to become of it during the year, or the period while the estate may be held in trust? The 76th section says that personal representatives are to hold as trustees for the persons by law beneficially entitled. Nobody ever yet, I suppose, heard of an executor saying to the person beneficially entitled to a leasehold house, or other property, you shall not go into the house, you shall not manage the property, you shall not deal with it by letting, and so on, if he were certainly entitled. If it were really necessary or justifiable for the executor to insist on remaining in possession, he would himself be obliged to discharge all duties in relation to the property, and to act as owner like any other trustee in possession. There is really very much less reason for alarm about this clause than the noble Earl supposes: though I do not myself take the same view of its importance that some others may do.
  On Question, "That Clause 74 stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 113; Not-contents, 122.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as this clause is connected with enactments that are vital to the Bill, I do not think that in the circumstances it is advisable to proceed further with the measure.
  Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE STANDING COMMITTEES.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MINTO: My Lords, in pursuance of the Notice which I have given, I have to ask the Chairman of Committees why it is that the Standing Committees, contrary to the established practice as to the sittings of other Committees of the House, are habitually appointed to meet at the same hour as is appointed for the House itself to meet for public business?
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, perhaps I may be allowed to inform the noble Lord that at the last sitting of the Standing Committee for General Bills it was agreed that they should meet at 3 o'clock.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It has been determined that the meetings of Committees should be at the hour which might, on the whole, be best under the circumstances. The reason why the Committee on Law meets at 4 o'clock is that the legal members of that Committee are generally engaged till that hour in their judicial duties.

BETHNAL GREEN POOR'S LAND.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in contravention of the words of the trust deed forbidding the erection of any building on the land amounting to 6½ acres known as Bethnal Green Poor's Land, the Charity Commissioners intend to sanction the erection of a free library and townhall and an infirmary thereon?
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, when the Legislature gave powers to the Charity Commissioners for the management of these trusts, and to carry them

  1567
  out in such a manner as they thought would be best for the interests of the population of the Metropolis, those powers were given with the view that they should carry them out, taking into consideration the particular condition of the population of London. This land was purchased in 1690 for the purpose of being continually kept open for the people, and I would ask your Lordships whether the population is not much more numerous and crowded to a very much greater extent in the district now than it was 200 years ago. How, then, can the Charity Commissioners think they are carrying out the wishes of the Legislature if they erect buildings on this land? If they think fit to allow building upon it are they not going in distinct contravention of the intentions of the Legislature that the charity trusts should be used with duo regard to the public requirements. Can it be said that open spaces are less needed now in that neighbourhood than they were 200 years ago? Can it be said that the population is less numerous now than it was 290 years ago? The Charity Commissioners cannot believe that they are carrying out the wishes of the Legislature unless they believe that is so. How strong the feeling is upon the subject is shown by the petition signed by some 400 people in the parish expressing the hope that this open space will be preserved. On the other hand, there is a petition signed by only 130 persons. That shows that public opinion is somewhat divided upon the matter. If these buildings be erected there will be very little land left to be devoted to the purpose for which it was originally intended. I hope an expression of opinion will be given which will show your Lordships' feelings in this matter, and which will intimate to the Charity Commissioners that if they allow buildings to be erected on this land they are not doing as was contemplated by the Legislature.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lords do not seem to be aware that the Charity Commissioners are pursuing the course laid down by Act of Parliament. They have not yet presented a scheme, though no doubt a draft scheme has been arranged for the management of the charity on the recommendation of a majority of the trustees. There are two branches of the charity—the object of
  1568
  one is to make provision for the poor and the other is in reference to dealing with the land. When the scheme is presented, the Commissioners are bound by statute to hear and consider all the objections made to it, and if they should decide wrongly the statute provides a remedy by appeal to the Court of Chancery. The matter is in due course of law arranged by the proper authorities, and I think I have said enough to show that any expression of opinion on the subject by Her Majesty's Government would be entirely out of place.

  EDUCATION (LUTON).
  "Recent correspondence between the managers of the National School, Luton, Beds., and the Education Department, in reference to a proposed loan to be raised by the Luton School Board upon the security of the rates."—(The Earl of Beauchamp.)
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

  MASTER AND SERVANT BILL (No. 111).
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may state that its object is to repeal a number of obsolete provisions—all provisions which have remained unrepealed by other legislation—in relation to the law of master and servant. A number of Bills were passed at different times relating to particular industries and particular places. Many of them are covered by general legislation passed since. Some of the Labour Acts have been repealed as regards England, and left unrepealed for some undiscoverable reason as regards Scotland and Ireland. None of those provisions ought to be in existence at the present time. I may give one illustration as an example. An Act was passed forbidding journeymen shoemakers to sell, exchange, or pawn hoots, shoes, or slippers, or materials for making boots, shoes, or slippers. There is no necessity nowadays for having any special legislation with regard to journeymen shoemakers, or other legislation than that which applies to all other workmen under all circumstances. There is this, also, to be added with regard to that particular Act—that it does not apply to all journeymen shoemakers, but only to those within the bills of mortality for the Metropolis. That is an instance of the kind of legislation upon this subject now remaining on the Statute Book, and which only encum-

  1569
  bers it for no useful purpose. I hog, therefore, to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to the Standing Committee of Bills relating to Law, &c.

COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL (No. 143).

  SECOND READING.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may say that the measure is extremely simple. There is a somewhat longer preamble than usual, but that preamble consists simply of the recital of various Charters which have been granted from time to time, and Acts of Parliament which have been passed with regard to the Coal Duties leviable within the Port of London. Upon page 7, a recital is given of the terms of their extension from 1872 down to 1882, and then down to the present year. Then comes a statement in the Preamble that it is expedient those duties should cease. In the next paragraph there is a recital of the terms of the Acts of Parliament of 1869 and 1874 which give power to the Corporation to pledge the proceeds of these dues for the purpose of raising money for the freeing of Kew Bridge and other bridges over the Thames. The next paragraph recites that Parliament reserves to itself the power to deal with the surplus arising from that fund. The enacting part of the Bill consists of two clauses. The first clause enacts a general repeal of those duties, but there is added to that a proviso that to the extent of 4d. the duties are to continue in force for one year from the present date. I need hardly tell your Lordships that this matter has been the subject of controversy in another place. Two Bills were introduced in the other House, one for the continuance and the other for the abolition of these duties. They were introduced early in the Session, and the First Reading of the Bill which has now come up to this House was taken as long ago as the 22nd February. The Second Reading was taken on the 22nd May, and on the 27th of that month it was referred to a very strong Committee. That Committee was what is known as a hybrid Committee, two Members being chosen from
  1570
  each side of the House by the House itself, and three added by the Committee of Selection. That Committee carefully considered this Bill and the other Bill, and the proposals made with regard to them. They took evidence at some length upon them, and on the 3rd July they made a Report to the other House of Parliament the purport of which has been embodied in the Bill. A clause which they drew up was added to the Bill and received the sanction of the other House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I think I am entitled to say that the matter has been very fully and carefully considered, and that I may now ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time. I will only make this further remark in explanation—that the effect of the proviso which has received the approval of the other House will be that a very large amount of debt for the Holborn Valley Improvement, which it may fairly be said is really a Metropolitan and not a City improvement, will have to be discharged by the City of London. There is a considerable sum remaining under the Bridge Acts, and that sum has been devoted under the arrangement which has been made to payments in respect of the debt due for the Holborn Valley Improvement. If, as some contend, a large portion of that money belongs to the City, the City agrees to dealing with it in this way. If, on the other hand, it is to be dealt with by Parliament, then the Committee, the history of which I have given to your Lordships, has resolved that it can fairly be applied to that purpose. The balance of the debt for the Holborn Valley Improvement, is considerable, and in order to discharge that debt the duty of 4d., with the surplus remaining from Kew Bridge, is to be applied. Under those circumstances, I now move the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not desire unduly to take up your Lordships' time, though if any further information is desired I shall be glad to give it to the best of my ability.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  LORD LINGEN: My Lords, as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council, I naturally take a very great interest in this Bill. It is entitled a Bill for the abolition of the Coal Duties leviable in London,

  1571
  subject to their renewal for one year. But that is not an entire representation of the present state of the case, as shown by the debates referred to which have taken place in the House of Commons. The really serious question involved in the Bill is the beginning of the adjustment of charges between the City of London and the new County Council. I think I ought to state to your Lordships that the County Council do regard the course taken upon this Bill, and the history of its introduction, with considerable dissatisfaction. Be they right or be they wrong in that view, their feeling upon the matter as that of a new representative body will, I have no doubt, receive consideration from your Lordships. They are inclined to think that this Bill in the Committee stage, being an extremely complicated Bill, as the recitals are sufficient to show, and involving considerations of very great difficulty, has received very short, and, as yet, insufficient attention. It has this peculiarity about it—that the Committee has reported no evidence, and that the City Authorities have produced no accounts upon which this Bill has been founded. Under those circumstances, the County Council do regard it with dissatisfaction. I think that is an important consideration for your Lordships to bear in mind, and for this reason:—There is no doubt that at some distant day very delicate questions will have to be adjusted between the Corporation of the City and the County Council; and it is surely of great importance that that settlement should be approached in a spirit of moderation and conciliation, not in a spirit of attack and defence, and not in a spirit of vindictiveness. The consideration which this Bill may receive in your Lordships' House, and the language which may be used about it, may have a considerable effect upon the issue. I have had no opportunity of ascertaining the bearing of this Bill, otherwise than has appeared in the public papers. The most important part of it, I think, is really the last section (Section 2) which appropriates certain surpluses; but looking to the speech and the figures quoted by Sir Lyon Playfair and some other Members of the other House, the object of this Bill would appear to be the beginning of a settlement of Metropolitan debts, taking the Holborn Valley
  1572
  Improvements as the first to be dealt with. I need not say that the question of the Holborn Valley Improvements is only one of the matters which will arise. As far as I can make out from the figures given in the public papers, there is a debt upon the City funds for the Holborn Valley Improvements at present undischarged of £744,000, and the proposal is to begin by dividing this debt of £744,000 into halves, each of which will amount to £372,000, and it is proposed that one of these moieties shall fall to the City and the other to the County Council. By the last section of this Bill is dealt with a surplus over certain funds which were applied to the freeing of the London bridges. I estimate that amount at £100,000, which is set aside by the City, and a further sum of £160,000, representing what is called a drawback for the purpose of discharging its liabilities. Then the Quarterly Dues are received for one year; it is estimated that they will produce about £142,000. Of that, one-half is to be given to the City, and one-half is to be given to the County Council for London. That is not in the Bill, but it appears from the speeches of those who support the Bill, and therefore I think it is absolutely necessary that this proposal should be considered along with the Bill. The result of those figures is that in discharging those two moieties of £372,000 each, the City will have to pay £141,000; and when everything has been taken into account the county will have to find £320,000 as its share. Thus, it is evident that this is the beginning of very serious considerations between the City and the County Council. My Lords, I have only risen for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the House this part of the case—how far this Bill involves the beginning of a settlement of Metropolitan debt; and also for the purpose of bringing before your Lordships the state of feeling in the County Council, which is certainly one of considerable irritation.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, I happen for once to be in entire unison with the London County Council, though not for the same reasons, in objecting to this Bill. It appears to me to be a tax the remission of which will be absolutely thrown away. Can your Lordships imagine for one moment that

  1573
  a single citizen of London will get his coal one penny the cheaper as the result of throwing away these Dues?
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I think the noble Lord is not in order.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: The noble Earl does not say why I am not in order. I say, my Lords, that the inevitable result of this will be that we shall have to face an additional taxation of at least 4d. in the £1.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, I wish to point out to the House that any doubt cast on the passing of this Bill would tend to dislocate the enormous interests represented by the coal trade of London. On the faith of previous Acts of Parliament, which have been renewed from time to time, the City has expended for the benefit of the whole Metropolis a vast sum representing a debt of £750,000 upon the Holborn Valley Improvements. It is now asked that the Coal Dues shall be renewed for one year to the extent of 4d. in the £1, the proceeds to be used for paying off that debt. It is very important to bear in mind that the continuing Act expires this day, and any doubt as to the passing of this Bill will seriously affect the London coal trade, and the enormous interests affected by it. I will endeavour to give the House an idea of their magnitude. I say, my Lords, that the tendency of throwing any doubt upon the passing of this Bill, which has received the strong sanction of the other House of Paaliament, would be to dislocate the coal trade to an extent that can hardly be estimated. I know, indeed, that at present many ships are lying in the Port of London, and will not discharge their cargoes in consequence of the uncertainty which overlies this question. The coal imports amount to 12,000,000 tons a year in round numbers, about 7,000,000 coming by railway, and 5,000,000 by sea. Another effect of suspending for any length of time the settlement of this matter would be to upset certain arrangements which some noble Lords are aware of as existing with regard to some of the principal lines. Those arrangements are of a complicated character, and at least five of the principal lines are under the liability of paying those dues. I only allude to these matters to show the House the extraordinary laxity with which this question
  1574
  has been dealt with by some, the danger of allowing it to remain unsettled, and how mischievous it would be. The injury done would vastly exceed the sum represented by a tax of 4d. per ton on the coal. I trust your Lordships will not reject a Bill of this kind which has been passed by an overwhelming majority in the other House of Parliament, and which, if passed now, will effect, at any rate, something like a temporary settlement of this matter.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I will first answer the point in reference to the apportionment of the debt between the City and the County Council. The noble Lord who referred to it had the courtesy to inform mo that he was going to raise that question, and I have taken the opportunity to look at the speeches he has mentioned. I did not think it right to raise the question myself; but I confess I have not been able to gather from those speeches the same construction which the noble Lord has done. I think if that construction is drawn from either the speeches of Sir Lyon Playfair or of the other Members it is erroneous. The reports are, on the face of them, extremely condensed, and on that account, being also complicated with so many figures, and dealing with such large sums of money, a mere abstract is very likely to be (quite innocently) entirely erroneous and misleading, and it is to be regretted if they have conveyed that construction to the mind of the noble Lord. I will state the exact position of the matter. There is a debt on the Holborn Valley Improvements of £744,000. Against that has to be put £160,000 from the savings referred to, and other sources. There are also the Dues at 4d. per ton, which may be estimated at about £140,000. This estimate does not materially differ from that of the noble Lord. Those sums together amount to £300,000. There is nothing in the Bill whatever regarding the debt of £744,000. I wish to state distinctly that the City of London will remain responsible for the whole balance of that debt of £744,000. I hope I have made that quite distinct. As regards the other point, that this Bill has not been adequately discussed. If that be the case I regret that it should be so; but I do not think that those who have brought

  1575
  in the Bill are in any way responsible for it. There was a block upon it in the other House of Parliament for three months, and the proposal to refer it to a Committee could not be carried out. If that had not been the case it would have been possible to discuss it with much greater deliberation than is now possible. This is the day on which the dues expire; and it is of the utmost importance, if trade is not to be dislocated, as the noble Lord (Lord Ravens-worth) has said, that this Bill should be passed into law with the utmost possible speed. I entirely reciprocate the expression of hope, which the noble Lord opposite expressed at the beginning of his speech, that nothing will be said in this House which will tend in any way to embitter the relations between the Corporation of the City and the London County Council, One can easily understand that there are many delicate financial matters to be discussed between those two Bodies, and it is certainly not my intention to say anything which could complicate their position. I am quite sure that it is the wish of your Lordships that those discussions should be carried on as comfortably as possible.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  LORD BALFOUR: I have to ask your Lordships to remit this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, and I further give notice that I shall ask for a suspension on Monday of the Standing Order, with a view to the remaining stages of the measure being taken on that day. I think I am justified in doing so, as this Bill partakes so much of the nature of a Money Bill.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

  PASSENGERS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 100.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without amendment and to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, at a quarter past Four o'clock.