Lords Sitting of 20 June 1892

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Earl of Clonmell (Claim to vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)—Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Clonmell to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
Earl of Clanwilliam—Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Richard James Meade, Earl of Clanwilliam, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Viscount Doneraile—Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Edward Viscount Doneraile to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Sir Henry John Selwin-Ibbetson, Baronet, having been created Baron Rookwood of Rookwood Hall and Down Hall, both in the county of Essex—Was in the usual manner introduced.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Customs and Inland Revenue.

2. Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

1502

3. Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, Amendment.

4. Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Acts Amendment.

5. Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act Amendment.

6. Indian Councils Act (1861) Amendment.

7. Charity Inquiries.

8. Weights and Measures (Purchase).

9. Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Extracts.

10. Statute Law Revision.

11. High Court of Justiciary (Scotland).

12. Housing of the Working Classes (Scotland).

13. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

14. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2).

15. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

16. Dublin Barracks Improvement.

17. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Abbotsbury, &c.).

18. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction, &c.).

19. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Cambrian, &c).

20. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Cleator and Workington Junction, &c).

21. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (East London, &c.).

22. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Festiniog, &c.).

23. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Furness, &c).

24. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction).

25. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Isle of Wight, &c.).

26. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Lancashire and Yorkshire, &c).

27. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (London, Tilbury, and Southend, &c).

28. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, &c.).

1503

29. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Metropolitan, &c).

30. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Midland and South "Western Junction, etc.).

31. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (North Eastern, &c).

32. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (North London).

33. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (North Staffordshire, &c).

34. Railway Rates and Charges Provision Order (Taff Vale, &c).

35. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Caledonian, &c).

36. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Callander and Oban).

37. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (City of Glasgow Union).

38. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Glasgow and South Western, &c).

39. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Great North of Scotland).

40. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Highland).

41. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (North British, &c).

42. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Athenry and Ennis Junction, &c).

43. Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Milnathort Water).

44. Gas Provisional Orders.

45. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

46. Local Government Provisional Orders.

47. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

48. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

49. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

50. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

51. Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Bathgate Water).

52. Allotments Provisional Order.

53. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6).

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That the Orders made on the 15th day of March last,
That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 21st day of June next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order in pursuance of a report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next:
And that no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next:
be discharged.

"EVELYN v. HURLBERT."
RESOLUTION.
LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, before drawing attention to the Rule which is the subject matter of this discussion it may be convenient that I should state shortly to your Lordships what was the state of the case before that Rule or Order was passed. When the Courts sat at Westminster before the building in which they sat was destroyed there was no room at all appropriated for keeping documents. Sometimes, as in a very well-known case that was tried twice and lasted along while, these documents were exceedingly voluminous, and the Associate had no place except his own spare room for putting these documents aside; he did the best he could, but he had no strong room, and there were no means of keeping documents safely which, for a time at all events, it was very often important should be so kept. When the Courts moved to the Strand we were more fortunate. The Government of the day gave us a strong room where documents could be properly kept and are properly kept, but it is obvious that a strong room for the keeping of documents is of comparatively little value unless the Court that impounds them has during the time that they are so impounded complete control over them. To put documents into a strong room to which anybody has access is

1505
of course idle, and it is desirable, therefore, that there should be somewhere a proper control exercised over the documents that are impounded. Now, there being no Rule, this matter was left really in the hands of the Associate, the present Associate being Mr. Erle, and personally they cannot be in better hands, but he had no real authority about the matter, and when he was asked, for any purpose, to give over a document to this person or that, he had no authority himself either to give or to withhold. He did for the best; he sometimes consulted me as being the head of the Queen's Bench, but I was consulted only as a friend and unofficially; I had no power whatever to give orders in the matter. He was left very much at sea as to what was the state of the document or documents which the Court had ordered to be impounded. That was so in the month of April last year, in which month, from the 13th to the 20th, a case which is known to many of us through the papers called "Evelyn v. Hurlbert" was tried before Mr. Justice Cave. The case lasted a very long time; there were a number of documents relating to it which were produced. I did not try the case myself, but I have had an opportunity of looking at Mr. Justice Cave's notes, and I have got from the officers of the Court a very clear account of what passed. The action was for breach of promise of marriage, and the letters which were the subject-matter of the discussion were only incidentally produced; the action was not about them, but they were produced for the purpose of showing that the defendant had promised the plaintiff to marry her. The greater part of the correspondence was put in in packets; it was referred to on both sides when necessary, the plaintiff producing and putting in most of the letters. A few only of the letters were shown both to the plaintiff and defendant; the plaintiff swearing that a person called Wilfrid Murray and the defendant were one and the same person, the defendant denying this and denying all knowledge of the letters. The plaintiff was examined and cross-examined as to certain diaries besides these letters. The defendant pro-
1506
duced and put in two letters signed by Wilfrid Murray and addressed to himself; he also produced a photograph with writing on the back from Mr. Murray to Mr. Hurlbert. He also produced a number of letters signed "Hurlbert," which were obtained from persons to whom they had been sent, mostly bankers, as genuine specimens of his handwriting. There is no note of any formal question having been put to the jury either in Mr. Justice Cave's note-book or in any other report which is accessible to me. The jury found there was no promise of marriage. In the report of the summing up the following passage, however, occurs:—
"If the defendant did not write these letters there was an end of the plaintiffs case; but if he did there was still the question whether there had been a promise of marriage, for unless there was a promise the plaintiff had no cause of action,"
and judgment accordingly was given for the defendant. Upon the application of the Attorney General the Judge ordered all the documents to be impounded on the 20th April. In that case the Attorney General was leading counsel for the defendant, but do not let me be supposed for an instant to suggest that in his so being, and afterwards being obliged to act officially in the matter, I, for one, make the smallest complaint. Years ago, when I was in the House of Commons, I resisted to the best of my ability the Motion made by Mr. Fawcett to restrain the Law Officers of the Crown from private practice; I thought then and think now that so to restrain the Law Officers would be a very mischievous thing. Therefore I never have made and never should think of making the smallest complaint that the Attorney General takes part in any case in which he is retained as a private barrister. But it must of course now and then a little complicate the matter when he acts as a private person as a Queen's Counsel on one side or the other of a great case, and then afterwards as Law Officer of the Crown and as representing practically the Government of the day takes some step either for or against the person for whom he has appeared as a private practitioner in Court; it is a con-

1507
sequence, however, that I, for one, am quite prepared to say must be faced. Mr. Justice Cave was asked to allow the counsel for the plaintiff to have access to these documents that had been directed to be impounded. This was mentioned to myself, and I agreed with Mr. Justice Cave, and upon the action of both of us the documents were not allowed to be given. Now, my Lords, I ought to say that of Mr. Hurlbert personally I know nothing whatever; I never saw him; I never met him; I never read a word of his writing; I am absolutely ignorant of him. Whether he is entitled to the description which an illustrious American gave of him—namely, that he is a man of fathomless and measureless turpitude, or whether he is a person entitled to the eulogies that have been passed upon him, and to the respect, admiration, and intimacy which has been given to him by persons of very high rank and position in this country I neither know nor care. He is an absolute stranger to me. But it was obvious to me, and I think it must be obvious to your Lordships, that if he was the person the plaintiff represented him to be, and if he was capable of the production of those letters, three only of which I have looked at, and until I saw those letters the capacity of the human mind for filth was unknown to me, if I say he was the person capable of writing those letters—I say "if," for I do not know or suggest whether he was or not—it is obvious that such a person would spare no means and would spend any money he had got to make himself the possessor of this body of letters, I forget the exact number, I think something over two hundred. I have only seen three of them, but I suppose they were all much of the same character. Under those circumstances it seemed to me that it was right, the officer having no authority of his own and there being no Rule to give him any authority, that there should be some distinct authority to apply to documents which were impounded by Order of the Court and which should authorise the person who had those documents to act under the Orders of the Court as might be advisable; and under those circum-
1508
stances it was that the Rule which I will read to your Lordships and which has occasioned so much discussion was passed. The action, as I have told your Lordships, was in April; the judgment was on the 20th April, and this Rule was passed in May—
"Impounded documents which are in the custody of the Court are not to be parted with and are not to be inspected except on a written Order signed by the Judge on whose Order they were impounded, and by the President of the Division in which they are impounded, or in case of documents impounded by an Order of the Court of Appeal by an Order of that Court. Such documents shall not be delivered out of the custody of the Court except upon an Order made on a motion in open Court."
I pause there only for a moment, because in the correspondence I shall have to refer to presently there is an entire misconception of the meaning of this last phrase—
"Such documents shall not be delivered out of the custody of the Court except upon an Order made on a motion in open Court."
My Lords, the Judges were not so unreasonable or so foolish as to make a Rule which prescribed that nothing should be done, that no Order should be made upon them except upon a motion in open Court which might be the most mischievous possible Rule, and would be felt by any person accustomed to public affairs to be capable of being, misapplied. The meaning of that clause, as anyone who considers the subject will see in a moment, is that the documents are to be in the possession of the Court and are to be kept by the Court as long as is material for the purposes of justice; and then they are not to be kept in the Court which so far as its own function is concerned has done with them, but they are, as soon as they have become useless for purposes of justice, to be, parted with, given out of the custody of the Court, and returned to any person who has a right to their possession. But that is a motion which, inasmuch as some of these documents are very important documents, we thought at all events should be made by counsel in Court, not that every Order dealing with them should be made in open Court, but that the documents having, come into the custody of the Court should only leave the Court for good under such Order as, is mentioned in

1509
the Rule. That, my Lords, was in May, and in June there followed this correspondence which has been laid upon the Table of the House, and with which I do not mean to trouble your Lordships at any length; it was laid upon the Table of both Houses I believe, but it was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on the 13th May of the present year. The first document is a letter from Sir Augustus Stephenson to Mr. Erle, saying that he was informed that it was necessary to make a formal application to see these documents, and he proposed to ask him to be good enough to give him an appointment to attend with the expert for the purpose of making the necessary inspection and comparison. To that Mr. Erle replied, after communicating with us, that we wanted to know for what purpose he desired the documents: that if he wanted them for any public purpose no objection of course could be taken for a moment to their production, but we thought it right to say—I do not wish to deny my full responsibility in the matter—that my learned brother who tried the case was of opinion—and I entirely agreed with I him—that any prosecution of the plaintiff upon these letters was a thing that we were not disposed to encourage. Whoever was inclined to prosecute the plaintiff was at liberty to prosecute her, but so far as any facilities which we could give for such prosecution were concerned we were not disposed to give them. Then Sir Augustus Stephenson writes a long letter saying that he desired to confer with counsel with respect to the particular documents, and he goes on to say—
"The Attorney General has directed me to act under the directions of the Solicitor General, to whom I have, therefore, forwarded a copy of our correspondence, and pending his directions I have only to ask that you will consider my application with reference to the impounded documents as withdrawn."
I cannot help thinking—I do not want to blame anybody—that there was too much form about this. If instead of this a letter had been written to myself or to Mr. Justice Cave saying: "There is no mystery about this; we want for the purpose of a prosecution of the defendant to have the documents compared with undoubted genuine documents by
1510
an expert, and we are going to institute a prosecution," no man in his senses would have interposed the slightest obstacle in the way of such a proceeding. Well, my Lords, nothing takes place from that time until the 7th July when a letter from the Solicitor General is sent giving the information that it is their intention to prosecute Mr. Hurlbert and asking that they may see the documents. Then Mr. Erle says that there is a Rule, and that they can have inspection if they like; but he (the Associate) being bound by the Rule, and no application having been made except to the Associate up to this point, Sir Augustus Stephenson is informed that he may come and inspect them, and compare them, and do anything he likes with them, but he must not take copies. Then he asks for the name of the attorney for the plaintiff, which is given. Then on the 13th August Mr. Erle says—
"By all means let us know who your expert is, and every arrangement shall be made for his convenience."
Then on 22nd August Mr. Inglis is nominated by Sir Edward Clarke, and then on 24th August Mr. Inglis goes, as is stated by Mr. Hullah, one of the clerks of the Associate's Department, as follows:—
"I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 22nd August, 1891. Mr. Inglis is now here, and has commenced his examination of the letters."
From that time to the 27th November, more than three months, nothing takes place. Why I do not know. I have never heard—it is no business of mine to inquire why there was this very long delay of three months on the part of Sir Augustus Stephenson—but it is obvious that every information having been given on 24th August, and indeed Mr. Inglis having inspected the documents and formed his opinion and reported, I presume, to those who represent the Government about this case, nothing was done by the Director of Public Prosecutions from 24th August to 27th November. On 27th November there is a long letter written recounting what had taken place, and then saying that they are going to apply to the American Government for an extradition—

1511
"I have therefore now respectfully to apply for permission to inspect the impounded documents, and to take copies of such as I may consider material. If their Lordships require that this application should be made in Court' (which, my Lords, we never did require or dreamed of requiring), "I can of course instruct counsel on my behalf, but at present, in my judgment, it would not be expedient in the interests of public justice to take that course."
Immediately upon that, on 4th December there is an answer from Mr. Erle saying that he is authorised to say that Sir Augustus Stephenson is quite at liberty to have any inspection made and a list taken of the documents impounded in each case. Then on 8th December there is a letter from Sir Augustus Stephenson saying that meanwhile Mr. Hurlbert, who had been expected to be arrested in New York, had suddenly disappeared, that where he had gone they did not know, and that in consequence no action could betaken at that time; and no action has been taken from that time to the present. That is really the whole of the correspondence. In that last letter there is a statement that I have already by anticipation answered saying—
"I now understand that their Lordships no longer insist on the application of the Rule of Court 33A in this case, and are willing to grant me permission to inspect and take a list of the impounded documents without making a motion in open Court."
I have explained already that that is a misconception; the Rule does not authorise, and certainly the Judges never contemplated that any motion in respect of these documents, as long as they were impounded and remained in the custody of the Court, should be made in open Court at all. The meaning of that Rule was that when the documents were done with, when the Court had no longer any occasion to keep them, when they were a mere incumbrance to the Court, they might properly go back to the persons to whom they belonged, and that that should be upon an application made in open Court, to which there could be no objection, but upon which I could not think it important to insist. So the matter remained till some days ago when in a meeting of the Rule Committee, at the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, I myself moved a Rule which has been passed unanimously by
1512
the Rule Committee and which provided as follows:—
"Impounded documents in the custody of the Court shall, upon the requisition in writing of the Law Officers of the Crown, or either of them representing the Crown, be given into the custody of such Law Officer."
My Lords, when the Rule was first passed it is true that we had never considered the matter about the Attorney General and Solicitor General at all; we were looking at the matter between party and party, and the interference of the Law Officers of the Crown, especially the Attorney General representing the function of the Public Prosecutor never occurred to us, perhaps it ought to have occurred to us; but it did not, and the words of the Rule therefore did not except them. To the Rule not excepting them I felt at once that great objection might be taken. The Government,, represented by the Attorney General, clearly, in my judgment, if they chose to take the responsibility of prosecution and of the custody of these documents, ought to have them; and not only in relief of the Court, but on the plainest principles, if the Attorney General or Solicitor General, representing the Crown, want documents for the purpose of justice, undoubtedly, on their request, the documents ought to be handed over to them. The result therefore, upon the whole, is that it was important in my judgment, and I think your Lordships will agree with me,, that there should be some Rule to protect the Law Officers; it was important that the words of that Rule should be clearly ascertained which would be binding upon them and upon everybody who comes to the Courts for justice; but the moment it was pointed out that although the Rule might be a right Rule it might nevertheless interfere, with public justice, because it hampered the action of the Attorney and Solicitor General, at once I conceived that it was desirable that that qualification should be made which now is made; and the documents will be handed over to either the Attorney or Solicitor General. If he thinks fit to ask for them and has a use for them that is a matter with which we, the Court, can have nothing to do, because if he should—which is

1513
not likely—in the least abuse the possession of such documents he is responsible to Parliament, as he ought to be, and is not responsible to any other person. My Lords, I thank you for the attention which you have given to me, and I make this Motion, which is really for the purpose of making these remarks, and which I will either press or withdraw as your Lordships think fit.
Moved, "That a copy of Rule 33A in Part II. of the Rules of the Supreme Court be laid on the Table of the House."—(The Lord Coleridge.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, inasmuch as my noble and learned Friend has stated that a Rule has now been made which provides that the Law Officers of the Crown, under whose advice the Director of Public Prosecutions acts, will in future be in a position to require the delivery to the latter of impounded documents if they consider it necessary for the purpose of considering whether there should be a prosecution and against whom it should proceed, all that my noble and learned friend has said is really now matter of past history. It refers to an incident which cannot occur again, and, being matter of past history, I do not propose to take up jour Lordships' time in discussing it. In future no such difficulty can arise as has arisen in the past; and, although different views may be taken perhaps with regard, for example, to the question how far it is for the Judges to consider against whom prosecutions should be maintained by the Director of Public Prosecutions, I do not propose to enter upon such difference of opinion. All that is removed absolutely for the future by the definite Rule which has been passed, and I do not think any useful object would be served by discussing what certainly occurred.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I only desire to say that when the Rule in its original form was first proposed by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice. I can answer that it did not occur to any one of the Rule Committee that there would be any probability of a conflict arising between any of Her Majesty's Judges and the people representing the
1514
Public Prosecutor. The real object was to have a regular Rule that documents should be placed in custody when they are impounded by the Court, and—in the sense that there was no Rule about the matter—that the somewhat unauthorised and irregular custody by the officers of the Court should be protected by a Rule, and that there should be some authority to whom application might properly be made—the whole intention being to keep back from idle and prurient curiosity documents that might have been received in Court, and for which no legitimate reason could be alleged that they ought to be inspected or seen. The moment it occurred to the Rule Committee that the Rule, so framed, could be so interpreted, and possibly so misunderstood, as to place any bar in the way of the Public Prosecutor, without any exception at all, including the Lord Chief Justice, we came to the conclusion that the Rule ought to be amended at once; and we have passed a Rule, as your Lordships have heard from my noble and learned Friend who last sat down, to prevent any such conflict of opinion arising in future.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I will ask your Lordships to allow me to explain in a very few words the necessity that has arisen for the introduction and passage of this Bill. Those of your Lordships who are connected with Scotland will be aware that, under the Local Government Act, 1889, the residue of the Probate and Excise Duties, amounting to about £250,000, was assigned for the payment of fees in the public elementary schools. That sum was to be distributed as a capitation grant, but the amount was not a fixed one, because it depended upon the amount of the probate grant for the United Kingdom. For the first year the sum distributed was sufficient to pay a capitation grant of about eleven shillings for every child in

1515
average attendance at the public schools in Scotland; for the next year the amount had rather increased, and it was further supplemented by an additional sum of £40,000 paid out of the Local Taxation, the Customs and Excise Act Fund of 1890; so that the whole amount available in that year was sufficient to pay a grant, not of eleven shillings as in the previous year, but of twelve shillings, for every child in average attendance in Scotland. Last year, as your Lordships know, a grant was made of public funds for relieving fees in elementary schools in England. That however, could not be done out of the same fund as was devoted to that purpose in Scotland, because that fund in England had been already devoted to various purposes under the provisions that had been arranged in the previous year. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided for the payment of fees in English schools out of a Parliamentary Vote, the amount being calculated at ten shillings a head. It is obvious when that was done for England, that Scotland had a claim to an equivalent sum. Scotland, as I have said to your Lordships, had provided for the relief of the payment of the fees of schools out of the Probate and Excise Grant, which had gone in England to the relief of the rates. Therefore, my Lords, when England got the fees paid out of public funds it was obvious that Scotland had a right to have a proportionate sum paid out of the public funds for Scottish purposes. Now the proportion, established by careful inquiry, out of one hundred would be eleven for Scotland, eighty for England, and nine for Ireland. On this calculation the sum which is to be paid to put Scotland on an equality with England in this matter amounts to about £265,000; but it is also obvious that an increased amount will have to be paid to Scotland if the amount paid in future years for England at the rate of ten shillings a head fails to be increased. Now it might, no doubt, have been possible simply to assign this sum of £265,000 a year to the various purposes for which it was thought proper to employ it in England; but I am assured that this would lead to very grave inconvenience,
1516
and it would for all time to come have prevented the proper comparison between the local taxation relief granted in England and that granted in Scotland. It has accordingly been thought better to transfer the payment of the fees in Scotland, as in England, to the Imperial Exchequer, and to set free an equivalent sum from the Probate and Licence Duties to be employed for miscellaneous purposes; but, on the other hand, it was not thought right to make the fee grant in Scotland, as it is in England, a mere fixed capitation grant of ten shillings, because the fee in public elementary schools in Scotland averages more nearly twelve shillings than ten shillings. It has, therefore, been necessary to introduce this Bill; and the way in which this Bill regulates the matter is as follows: The Scotch Education Department will receive from the Exchequer a sum equal to eleven-eightieths of the grant for the payment of fees in England year by year. This year that sum will be £265,000; but it will be eleven-hundredths of the sum which is paid to England, whatever that sum may be. To this amount the sum of £40,000, which I have already mentioned as being given under the Customs and Excise Act, 1890, will be added, and in return that fund will surrender £250,000 out of the Probate and Licence residue, and will receive what is left of that residue. This year what is left will amount altogether, as I have said, to £265,000, and with the £40,000 and the remnant of the Probate and Licence residue the sum available for fees in Scotland is expected to amount to £307,000. Now it has been thought better to deal with the distribution of the £265,000, now paid to Scotland for the first time, in a comprehensive manner, and in terms of an Act of Parliament, rather than to leave it to be distributed year by year either at the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland, or by a Minute of any Public Department; and it has been thought better to place in the Act of Parliament, within certain limits, the objects to which it is to be attributed, rather than to leave the matter to local option. It is thought that, if there is a fund so large as this to be struggled for year by year, it would lead in future to a great

1517
deal of dispute and very likely jealousy and heartburning; and therefore that it is much better to settle it, so far as it can be settled, within the terms of an Act of Parliament. My Lords, in suggesting to Parliament the allocation of this sum, the Secretary for Scotland has considered carefully the various claims that were made upon him for attention and consideration. Of course there was a party who urged that the whole sum should be given in relief of the rates, and anybody who had a special subject which he thought more specially worthy of attention put in a claim for a share of the fund. My Lords, I am bound to say that in the abstract I think the Scottish ratepayer would have a very strong claim to a very large portion of this fund, perhaps to the whole of it, because he had not for three years got the relief which his English brother had got. At the same time I think the incidence of local rating is not, perhaps, so severely felt in Scotland as it is in England, because new rates, as your Lordships are aware, are in that country, for most purposes, divided between occupiers and owners. I must say I think those who are more particularly concerned in the management of the affairs of the Scottish ratepayer are entitled to have it said publicly on this occasion that they have shown a very considerable amount of generosity in this matter, because so far as we could gather, they are quite content with the allocation which is made in this Bill. The whole sum, as I have indicated, has not been given to the relief of the rates; but, on the contrary, £30,000 a year has been assigned to the Universities, and that sum will be distributed according to an Ordinance which is to be issued hereafter by the Universities Commission which is now sitting. Next, your Lordships will find a provision in the Bill for allocating £60,000 to the purposes of secondary education; £3,000 out of that sum will be required to carry out the inspection of secondary schools provided for under a recent Act of Parliament, but which has only been carried on up to the present time with considerable difficulty for want of funds; and out of that £3,000 also will be paid the expenses of the examinations conducted
1518
in most of the higher class schools of Scotland for granting leaving certificates. The balance of the sum that I have mentioned—£50,000—will, I think, be a substantial assistance to the higher education schools. I can assure your Lordships, from my own knowledge, that there is no object to which assistance can be better devoted, or for which assistance is more urgently required, than for the promotion of higher education schools. I had the honour of serving upon a Commission, of which I was appointed Chairman by the noble Lord (Earl Spencer)—who is not in the House now—some ten years ago, and the result of that work, which was to reorganise the educational endowments of Scotland, convinced me that in many districts higher education was suffering from the educational policy of past years—I do not say suffering in any way which might not have been expected, or was not perhaps the inevitable consequence of what had been done for primary education in 1872; but there can be no doubt that, with the exception of a few of the larger centres of population and some districts of the country that were well off for endowments, the provision made from public funds and other sources for secondary education was lamentably deficient, not only for the wants of the population in the abstract, but in proportion to the provision which had been made for primary education; and also in comparison with the attention which has for many years been devoted to University education in Scotland. My Lords, I sincerely hope and believe that this sum of £57,000 will be a really substantial assistance to secondary education in Scotland. A great deal of discussion has taken place as to the terms upon which it should be distributed. That matter is not contained in this Bill; but it has been remitted to a Committee over which Lord Elgin presides, and he has to assist him persons skilled in education, not only as regards the special circumstances of Scotland, but as regards what has been done in Wales, and also with some English experience; and I have no doubt whatever that the outcome of their deliberations will be such that the Secretary for Scotland's Department and the Scotch Education Department will find great assist-

1519
ance in specifying the conditions upon which this money is to be distributed. The remainder of this sum of £265,000 which is dealt with under this Act is devoted in the following proportions: £25,000 goes to the Parochial Boards in addition to the grant they now receive for pauper lunatics under the Local Government Act; £50,000 will go to the same Public Bodies for the relief of local rates; and the remaining sum of £100,000 will be given to the County Councils and to the Town Councils, partly in the relief of the rates which they administer, and partly, as the words of the Bill express it, for any scheme of public utility framed by those bodies respectively, but which shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. You have therefore, in the apportionment of that large sum, the initiation of the Local Authority, controlled and regulated by the wider experience of those at headquarters. I believe, my Lords, that although there has been considerable discussion about the terms of this Bill in another place, so far as I can now gather from the ordinary channels of information and from communications that reach me, there is no general dissatisfaction, but, on the contrary, a considerable amount of satisfaction at the settlement which has been reached, and to which, by passing this Bill, I ask your Lordships to give your sanction. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time; and I propose to put it down for Committee on Thursday next, if your Lordships are good enough to give it a Second Reading to-day.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".—(The Lord Balfour.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MIXED MARRIAGES, MALTA.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a very few words in explanation of the question which I have placed upon the Paper. Your Lordships will remember that some time ago there was very considerable anxiety among many
1520
of Her Majesty's subjects in the Island of Malta on account of the doubt which had been thrown by independent authorities upon the validity of marriages which had been celebrated by other than the Roman Catholic clergy. A question was raised as to the validity of past marriages, and as to the course to be pursued in future. The noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office promised that an inquiry should be made into the true state of the law, and also in March, 1890, Mr. Smith, in the other House, promised that reference should be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in order to obtain an exact statement of the existing relations. Some time has elapsed and the anxiety upon this subject has not diminished, although it is known that inquiries have been proceeding and the anxiety has been increased recently by the appearance in Malta in the Government Gazette of the 1st June of a Draft Ordinance on the subject proposed to be enacted by the Governor of Malta with the advice and consent of the Council of the Government thereof. I am aware, of course, that this is of no present value until it has received confirmation in England; but nevertheless as it is a Draft Ordinance, and as it threatens to place the anxious part of the population in a worse position than they were in before, the anxiety has deepened greatly just now, and there is no doubt a strong feeling upon the subject in the island, and amongst those great communities which, one or other, are interested in all the Protestant population of the island. The first Article of this draft states that in future a mixed marriage contracted between a person who is a Roman Catholic and a Protestant shall be invalid. In fact, the statement is that it should have no civil effect either in regard to married persons or their issue unless it be celebrated according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church and by priests of that Church. It is not the less important, but rather more, to observe the third Article, which states that the marriage between persons who, with a view to elude the laws of the Catholic Church, or in fraudem legis, have abandoned the Roman Catholic religion, is invalid. This is

1521
more formidable because it threatens an inquisition into motives of a painful and may be of a destructive character. I venture therefore to ask Her Majesty's Government for an answer to the question which I have placed upon the Paper before your Lordships: Whether the questions of the validity of the unmixed (Protestant) and mixed marriages, celebrated in Malta by clergy of the Church of England and by Presbyterian and Wesleyan ministers since the British occupation of the island, have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in order to obtain an authoritative declaration of law relating to the validity of such marriages; and, if the questions raised have not been so referred, whether the Order of Reference will be completed before the Dissolution of the present Parliament?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I think I can relieve the mind of the most rev. Prelate. As regards that Draft Ordinance, it is so far as I know a Draft Ordinance which has been introduced into the Legislative Council by an unofficial Member for whom we are not responsible, and I do not think it is likely to get what is called here a Second Reading; but, assuming that it did pass the Council, I can undertake that it shall not receive Her Majesty's Assent in the present state of things. My Lords, the question of the validity of these marriages is about to be referred to the Judicial Committee. A case has been prepared by Dr. Tristram in support of the contention that the marriages are valid, and the other case has been prepared by Sir Giusseppe Carbone, the Crown Advocate in Malta, in support of the view which he contended for, and which I had occasion once before to state to your Lordships, of the invalidity of the marriages. I think I may say that the cases are now ready, and it is intended that an Order in Council shall be passed at the next Council referring these two cases to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

CORONERS' DEPUTIES BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, my attention has been called to two matters in this Bill to which I should like to direct the attention of my noble and learned Friend. I understand that this Bill for the first time makes it necessary for the approval of the Lord Chancellor to be obtained in the case of the appointment of deputies for County Coroners. The approval is not necessary as I understand in the case of all Coroners.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is.
LORD HERSCHELL: But in some boroughs Coroners are appointed, as I understand, by the County Council?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD HERSCHELL: That is what I had in view; it is the borough county to which, my observations apply, and whether it is necessary in those cases to require the approval of the Lord Chancellor, which has not hitherto been required, I should like my noble and learned Friend to consider. Also for the first time, as I understand, in the case of a County Coroner it is necessary for him to obtain a certificate signed by a Justice of the Peace before he can be absent and his deputy can act. That requirement is said to give rise, even in the case of Borough Coroners, to very considerable inconvenience; and it has been represented to me that it is not an expedient policy to extend that to the County Coroners, as is done by the Hill. I will not say more now, but I ask my noble and learned Friend to consider those matters which have been represented to me.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, this Bill provides for the re-constitution of Galway

1523
Infirmary as a Public General Hospital available for patients in the town as well as in the county. The institution was originally a county infirmary, and will in future, so far as it is not self-supporting, be maintained out of the poor rate.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Order of the Day for the Report of Amendments to be received read.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, there are a few Amendments, which I am sorry to say are not printed, because there was no time to do so, which I wish to propose to your Lordships.
Clause 4.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I propose in page 2, line 28, to leave out "them" and insert "the Council"; it is purely a verbal Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9.
EARL CADOGAN: I move, in page 4, line 35, after the word "be" insert the word "divided," and leave out the word "let," and insert the same word after the word "assign." In the clause as it was agreed to in Committee, the word "sub-let" was inserted, and the word "let" was omitted. The clause, as I propose to amend it, will read as follows:—
"That the holdings should not be divided, sub-divided, assigned, or sub-let, without the consent of the County Council."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: I have an Amendment to move in page 5, line 5, to meet the objection made by the noble Lord (Lord Basing) to the wording of the sub-section (g) which was moved in Committee. I promised to bring up a new sub-section, which is as follows:—
"In the case of any holding, on which in the opinion of the County Council a dwelling-house ought not to be erected, no dwelling-house shall be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council."
1524
It is simply an amended form of the same sub-section which was approved in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, before moving the Amendment of which I have given notice, I should like to ask my noble and learned Friend whether something must not be done as regards Clause 10?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have some Amendments to move with regard to Clause 10. I think the form in which Clause 10 was left by the Amendments actually made renders it impossible for the clause to stand as it is. I have to move, in page 6, lines 1 and 2, to leave out "sold a small holding to a purchaser" and insert "purchased the land"; in lines 2 and 3 to leave out "for his registration as the proprietor" and insert "for registration as proprietor"; and to leave out all after "1875" in line 3 to the end of line 9. That would make the clause workable as it was amended in Committee.
Amendments agreed to.
New Clause 11.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in making the proposal to insert the clause of which I gave notice, in place of that which was struck out at the last stage of the Bill, I desire to say at the outset that, if Her Majesty's Government state that they intend, as was suggested at all events by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, to propose a clause in another place, in substitution for that which was struck out at the last stage of the Bill, I shall, on receiving that assurance, at once withdraw my proposal; I have no desire to press the particular form in which I have proposed it before your Lordships, or to press it at all here, if I receive the assurance that the Government intend, as was at one time suggested, to make the proposal in another place. But, my Lords, supposing I do not receive that assurance, I shall ask your Lordships to adopt this clause. Undoubtedly it is a matter to which many persons attach very considerable importance, and I do not think that to adopt it would be making any violent

1525
change in the law; it would be proceeding in the direction in which the Legislature has to some extent already proceeded in the Act which was referred to when this matter was last discussed, which made, in the case of small properties, a provision for the widow whether the estate be real or personal estate. But it is only for the widow that they have made provision where the estate does not exceed £500. Supposing there be no widow in the case of small property, the whole of it will go still to the eldest son, and there is no provision whatever for the younger children. Now we expect these small holdings to be held by persons who will have but little property; very often the whole of that property will be invested in this shape; and they will certainly be of a class amongst whom it is extremely common not to make wills; it is in the case of these small owners of property that the present law of intestacy has the widest operation. The owners of large estates almost invariably dispose of them either by settlement or by will; but amongst the owners of small portions of landed property I believe the practice is exactly the contrary, and that you would find it is a minority only who are in the habit of making wills. I was told in a part of the country where there are a number of small freeholders, by, I forget whether it was the Conservative candidate, at all events it was a Conservative attending a meeting there, that he asked those present among the small owners of land who had made wills to hold up their hands, and then those who had not made wills; and the vast majority had not made wills. And I think that the experience one has had as Law Officer shows how common a thing it is, even in cases where a person, being illegitimate, has no heir, so that the property would go to the Crown, that still no will is made, and the children are left unprovided for, and dependent upon any grant that they may apply for from the Crown. Therefore you have these small owners very often not making wills; and I think that the law ought, if possible, to make, so far as it can, for those who do not make wills, a just distribution of the property. In the case of these small owners it cannot be said to be a
1526
just distribution that the whole of the property will go to the eldest son and nothing be left to the other children. Of course a measure of this sort—and that I think is a justification for dealing with it as is proposed in this Bill—tends to increase that state of things. You are intending here to encourage a number of people to own a small piece of land only; that is the very object of your Bill. Therefore you are going to induce a number of persons, who otherwise might have had such savings as they had gathered invested in a fashion by which, in cases of intestacy, all would be distributed amongst their children, to invest them in such form that, if they die intestate, the whole will go to one child and the others will be unprovided for; and the question is whether, when introducing a measure which would have that effect, the proper course is not that which commended itself to the other House—namely, to deal exceptionally, by way of legislation, with the small holdings, and to provide that they shall descend as personal estate? My Lords, it is said that this will create an anomaly—and that no doubt is the case; but there is a good deal that is anomalous in the Bill itself. You are interfering in this way to induce persons to become the proprietors of these small holdings, and that law is justified on account of the public benefit which will result. I do not think it will create any real confusion or difficulty, because all this land is to be registered; and I should propose, if this Amendment were carried, as a consequential Amendment at the next stage of the Bill, to require that it should appear on the face of the register when it is conveyed under this Act as a small holding. You will therefore have on the face of the register a clear indication that it was land under this Act, and to which therefore this clause would apply. That I think would prevent doubt, difficulty, or confusion, as to whether or not the land came within the clause which I am now proposing. Even supposing that the difficulties are greater than they are, I would submit to your Lordships that they are not at all sufficient to outweigh the injustice that is likely to result from the change in the law which will aggravate the evils of the

1527
existing system. And those who desire that the law should remain unchanged, I should have thought, would have desired to remove one of their difficulties by encouraging a change in the law such as this in the case of small properties. But the fear is, after all, as to its effect upon larger estates and family properties. That is the reason they are apprehensive of the change in the law, and desire that it should not be made. But the views they express really do not apply to such small holdings as these, to which alone the change of the law would be applicable. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will see your way to make this change. I cannot help feeling that it will tend in the direction of a just distribution of the property; that it will tend to make the measure more popular than it is; and that its tendency will be to create more of these small holders of land, in whose case the present law frequently works an injustice. My Lords, I move the new clause which I have put on the Paper.
Moved, after Clause 10, to insert a new Clause—
"Where a County Council have sold a small holding to a purchaser under this Act and he has been registered as proprietor as hereinbefore provided, the land so sold thereupon be and remain personal property; provided that nothing in this section shall render any such land liable to probate duty or legacy duty, or exempt it from succession duty."—(The Lord Herschell.)
THE PRIMB MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the difficulty that we have to deal with is that there is a balance of advantages on both sides; I do not maintain that the argument is all one side; but there seem to me serious objections to the course recommended by the noble and learned Lord of which he has taken no notice. The first objection is one that I ventured to bring before him the other night, and which I thought he swept away in a summary manner which showed that he had not sufficiently considered it; and it is this: that the operation of your clause in cases of intestacy will be precisely in the opposite direction to the operation which you desire to give your Bill. That is to say, that if we assume cases of intestacy to be
1528
very numerous—I take that as the hypothesis—your small holdings will be re-absorbed in larger estates almost as fast as you make them; whenever there is intestacy, if this clause passes, practically the small holding must be sold; the County Council are not forced to sell it, but they are invited to sell it. But there is another circumstance of which sufficient account has not been taken. By the Act of 1890 where there is real property a scale is given in order to ascertain what its value is, and, on its value so ascertained, the widow must have £500 worth, if there is so much.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think that is whether it is real or personal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is true; but, in the case of real property, without selling the property, a scale is indicated by which you may ascertain what the value is—it is to be twenty-five years' purchase of the Income Tax value of the land. But if it is personal property there is no such scale; you are simply to take the net value of the property after all debts and liabilities have been cleared up. I submit myself to the noble and learned Lord opposite; but my impression is that, for the purpose of paying a debt of that kind, executors would very seldom be willing to undertake the responsibility of valuing the property, but practically they would always put it up for sale. The result, therefore, of the clause, which the noble Lord has brought forward, will be that these small holdings, in all cases of intestacy, will be sold; if sold, they would be sold by auction; and you know what the state of things is in country districts; you know how many bidders there are for small holdings to keep them in that condition. We are obliged to give special inducements, in the way of a very large advance of capital, and the power of putting off payment, in order to make this kind of purchase as palatable as we desire that it should be. One of two things is true—either intestacies are numerous, or they are not. If they are numerous you will have the small holdings purchased again by larger proprietors, and the main object with which your Bill has been introduced will be frustrated. If intestacies are

1529
very few it is not worth while disturbing the general law of the country and the general uniformity of the devolution of freehold estates in order to provide for such cases. My Lords, I wish that for all these discussions some measure could be taken for ascertaining whether these intestacies are numerous or not. I do not measure my experience by the side of that of a former Law Officer of the Crown; but, such as it is, my experience is entirely in the opposite direction: that intestacy is becoming very rare, and rarer every day; that intestacy is a condition which is produced by want of education, and that, as education goes on, intestacy will become quite an exceptional occurrence. It is possible that the persons with whose estates the noble Lord had to deal were persons who had come to an age of discretion in a pre-educational era; but these holders, the owners of these small holdings—for I do not suppose men will undertake such an enterprise late in life—will all, or very nearly all, be people who were under the age of fourteen when twenty-two years ago provision was made for education in every parish in the country. Therefore, my Lords, I doubt the fact of intestacy being very common; but I repeat again that you have the alternative that, if it is common, you will undo the working of your Bill, and, if it is not common, you will have incurred the disadvantages gratuitously. Now the disadvantages are real. This is a very serious provision; it attaches to the land, no matter what its fate, no matter what vicissitudes it may go through, a peculiar character for all time. The land may be bought, on intestacy, by a neighbouring proprietor of ten or twenty acres, and the holding may be merged in a large forty or fifty acre field,—the very boundaries of which may be forgotten; and yet there will be attached to that land this character; that for all time, on certain occasions, it will have a different devolution and will be assigned differently compared with the land by which it is surrounded. Surely, there is great danger that these boundaries will be forgotten, and people will not remember that this bit of land in a grass field has attached to it a different
1530
law of devolution from that of the land in which it lies; and great doubt, and controversy, and litigation, and loss, and injustice will arise from the fact of the different destinies of those two kinds of land being forgotten, and the requisite precautions for preventing contusion not being taken. I feel that that is a danger; and I think that the noble Lord, with his experience as Law Officer, will bear me out in this: that it is a danger with which we are acquainted with respect to copyhold land; it is a matter of experience that the boundaries of a bit of copyhold land are lost sight of, and you only know that there is a bit of copyhold land somewhere in a big field, but you do not know where you can light upon it; and that causes great difficulty and confusion. That is the evil. Is there any advantage in this Bill that should justify you in incurring that evil? I doubt it very much. A great deal has been said in the other House and in this House of the wife. It was said that by the Intestate Estates Act of 1890 the wife will always have her £500. The limit of a holding is £50, and only one-fifth of that is paid for; and my impression is that, at the prices at which the County Council can buy, ten acres of land will very seldom cost more than £500. Consequently all these holdings, as a matter of practice, will come under the operation of the Act of 1890; the widow will get the land absolutely as her own; and this Act converting it into personal property will not interfere. Therefore I do not think you will confer any advantage whatever upon the widow. The only advantage is of course upon the other children; and, whether it is in accordance with the wishes of the agricultural population that land should be sold and the money equally divided among the children, instead of the land being left to one son, is to my mind a matter of very great doubt. I do not think you are moving on lines parallel to the public sentiment on that point. But finally I want to point out to the noble Lord that, as the Bill stands, it enables every County Council to do exactly what he desires; they have nothing to do but to revert to alarm of tenure with which I am sure he must be very

1531
familiar, namely, a 999 year lease, which is a very common form of tenure in various parts of England. That is personal property. The Council, instead of selling, are perfectly competent to give 999 year leases, and that will answer all the objects of the noble Lord, without running the very considerable danger of the legal confusion which his very unusual and strange enactment may produce. I doubt whether the noble Lord has sufficiently considered all the cases in which the words "personal" and "real" property are applicable, and whether he is quite certain that it is safe, in this sudden way, to substitute the word "personalty" for the word "realty." But, if the House desires to do it, and if the County Councils desire to do it, the provisions of the Bill enable the County Council, instead of granting the freehold, to grant a lease for 999 years.
LORD HERSCHELL: They can only do that where they are satisfied that the persons desiring to cultivate it are unable to buy under Clause 4, Subsection 2. The general law is as to land which they themselves hire or otherwise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But they may take it themselves on a 999 year lease, which will meet the difficulty.
LORD HERSCHELL: No; they can only do that under Clause 2.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They can do that, I think, up to fifteen acres without hindrance. However, upon that point, if it would meet the view of the noble Lord, I should be ready to introduce modifying words into the Bill. But the advantage of doing that, if you are to do it, by way of long lease, is that, as noble Lords well know, in 1882 an Act of Lord Cairns enabled any subsequent freeholder to convert it into freehold if he pleased. That leaves it absolutely free. If it turned out that the noble Lord was giving a gift to the holder which he did not appreciate and did not want to have, Lord Cairns's Act of 1882 would enable him at once to convert it into ordinary freehold. Therefore, though I do not think myself that any change is desirable, and though I shall certainly vote against the proposal of
1532
the noble Lord as it stands upon the Paper, if he wishes to give the County Councils the power of making this experiment, I suggest that the mode of doing it by long lease is a mode which will not disturb the machinery of the law, and will enable all that is desirable in his proposal to be attained.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think it is pretty clear that the Bill as it stands does not give such power to the County Council as the noble Marquess suggests. There are only two clauses in it relating to the letting of land: one is Clause 2, by which they are permitted to let land where the purchase would be too high, on account of its being likely to be used for building or for other reasons; and the other is Clause 4, Sub-section 2, which enables the County Council to let land where the persons are unable to buy.
EARL CADOGAN: Clause 2 empowers them to hire.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Quite so; but that is not my point. My point is that they cannot let upon a 999 year lease; they cannot feu out the land, as it is called in Scotland, because they are given no such power except in the two special cases to which I have just referred. It is possible, of course, for Her Majesty's Government, if they think proper and desirable, to introduce into the Bill a power to the County Councils to feu or let out land for 999 years. With regard to the supposed danger which may arise from confusion as to the tenure on which this land is held, what the noble Marquess said about copyholds is quite true; but I would point out to him that there is no possibility of confusion arising under this Bill, because every one of these holdings will have to be registered, and, when registered in the Registry Office, they are registered with a map of the boundary as fixed by the map; and, as it would be impossible to deal with that land in any way except through the Registry Office, it is inconceivable that anybody should be unaware that it is land which is subject to this particular tenure. Precisely the same argument might be used with regard to registration generally. You might say that no one can tell

1533
—nor can they without inquiry—whether; any particular land is registered; but you cannot become possessed of land mow by purchase, when once it is registered, except through the Registry Office. It is, therefore, obvious that, if you made the mistake of imagining land was registered when it was not, and you took possession of it without going to the Registry Office, you would not be able to make good the title to it. With regard to the general question whether agricultural labourers are in the habit of allowing property to descend without making wills, one must have an extensive knowledge to make an absolute assertion. I do not pretend to set my experience against that of the noble Marquess; but I have constantly found it the case—far more often than not—that men holding small pieces of land do not make wills. However no individual can lay down a general proposition on such a matter as that, and I should not be so rash; but it is my strong impression that you will find that they very frequently die intestate. And with regard to what the noble Marquess said, that such an Amendment as that which my noble and learned Friend proposes would be in the teeth of the objects of the Bill, which are that there should be small holdings held by one person, I would point out that it is quite a mistake to suppose—at least if I read the Bill rightly—that, when this land is sold by the action of the County Council, it can be sold to a large landowner; because, unless the County Council determine that for special reasons it shall be exempt, it must remain for twenty years subject to the conditions in the Bill. At the end of twenty years, under all circumstances, it would be emancipated from those conditions, and might be sold back to a large landowner. Therefore, for the twenty years, for which you have provided that it shall remain as a small holding, cultivated by one person, unless the County Council otherwise decide for special reasons, it cannot be sold to any large landowner: it must be sold to a single person who must cultivate it himself. Then as regards the effect of the sub-division, the argument of the noble Marquess seems to me to point to this: that the Bill ought to
1534
provide that, under no circumstances whatever, should it be possible to sell this land in consequence of sub-division. But that is not so; because you leave to such holder a perfect power of bequeathing the land, and, if he bequeaths the land to his children generally, precisely the same operation would take place as if it takes place by the course of law. You have not provided in the Bill that it shall unalterably be subject always to these conditions, but you have provided that for twenty years it shall be subject to them unless the Comity Council shall otherwise direct. My Lords, I should have thought it would be a great hardship to the family of a labourer to find that, in consequence of his not having made a will, all the children, except the eldest son, will be left without a share of the property whatever. I cannot conceive anything more likely to cause discontent and discouragement amongst labourers who may have become possessed of land. Under these circumstances, I cannot see the balance of advantages of which the noble Marquess spoke. I do not see any advantage on the other side in maintaining the present system of tenure in this land. The only argument that I can see—and that argument I admit may have weight, with some of your Lordships—is that you are introducing a modification in the Law of Succession, and, if you do that with regard to small holdings, you may be paving the way for a similar alteration of the law in regard to all the land of the country. Apart from that, it seems to me that every one of the arguments are distinctly in favour of my noble and learned Friend. The argument from the desire you have to make this Bill generally popular: the argument from your wish that it shall not in any way lead to sub-division on the part of men who become possessed of small holdings—every one of these considerations seems to me to make in favour of the clause; and I submit that it would be very much to be regretted if the House should strike out a clause put in by the other House, which I think is quite in accordance with the general provisions and objects of the Bill, and which I cannot see could lead to any serious difficulties or dangers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, it seems to me that a general question is raised by this Amendment under very peculiar and exceptional circumstances. I have some time since given in my adhesion to the general proposition that, on the whole, when the law has to make a will for a man who does not make it himself, the most equal distribution of the property is the best; and, therefore, if it were a question of general law, I should no doubt adhere to that conclusion—which was not arrived at suddenly, because formerly I did not think so. But I have always felt that against that alteration of the general law the strongest argument arose from this very class of cases; because it is not the wish of any of us, I should think, to see the process of absorption of small holdings into larger ones going on, and we should certainly prefer that they should remain in the families to which they belong. But it has always seemed to me that changing the tenure from that of real to that of personal estate would generally make sale necessary; and certainly one is struck with the opposition of that consequence to what seems to be the policy of this particular Bill, which is to create small holdings, and, I presume, that they should so continue. I am further struck with the extreme difficulty of reconciling what is proposed with the conditions which are to be enforced for twenty years—namely, that the holding shall not be sub-divided, let, assigned, or sub-let without the consent of the County Council. Now, unless we assume that in these cases of intestacy the County Council would always allow subdivision, you will be placing this land in a very singular and anomalous position. If the Amendment is made law, it cannot be divided; therefore it must be sold if it is to be dealt with at all.
LORD HERSCHELL: Clause 4, Sub-section 2, contemplates sub-division on death.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That implies the consent of the County Council.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The County Council may require it to be sold; but I see nothing there about
1536
division. So far as assignment is concerned, the objection no doubt would not arise, but it could not be sub-divided amongst the holders as any other estate might be. I confess I am very much perplexed with this. It seems to be introducing a change into the law exactly at the point where the change is attended with the greatest difficulty.
EARL CADOGAN: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord for one explanation. In his clause he proposes to enact that, under certain circumstances, the land so sold shall thereupon be and remain personal property. How long does he mean it to be and remain? Is it to be only during the twenty years, or how long?
LORD HERSCHELL: I meant altogether. I think there would be a great difficulty in making it shift backwards and forwards from real to personal. I think it should remain without any limitation. I might say that I propose to change the word "property" into "estate" in moving the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must say that I think one of the great sources of confusion in the law is where, by Act of Parliament, the Legislature has thought proper to say that something should mean something that it is not. And this is really, in that way, to enact by Statute that a small holding shall be personal and subject to be assigned so by devolution of it upon death. That is the only object I understand that is insisted upon. If that is to be done, I think it ought to be done directly and by a precise apportionment of what is to be done in such and such cases, according to the analogy of the Statute of Distributions. I must say I object very much to simply making it personalty, which, no doubt, from one point of view, may be a small thing, but which may add to it other incidents. I do not think any human intelligence is capable of foreseeing what the consequences would be if you turn this into personalty. I think that if what is sought to be done is to be done, it should be done in a different way. I cannot help thinking that what my noble Friend the Prime Minister suggested would meet the case—namely, that the County Councils should have power to

1537
grant long leases; and, if that power does not exist now—and I am disposed to agree with my noble and learned Friend in thinking that it does not—nothing would be easier than to suggest an Amendment by which the power of the County Councils could be enlarged to give long leases.
EARL NELSON: My Lords, I should like to point out that we have taken it for granted that the agricultural labourer would wish his property to be divided; but I myself believe that one of the great desires of the small holder to have property is that it may continue in his family, and I believe that, if we are making it impossible for the eldest son to continue the holding, we shall be taking away one of the great incentives that they have at present for desiring the possession of small holdings.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not Contents 63.
New Clause 11, negatived accordingly.
Clause 11.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have an Amendment to propose in Clause 11, page 6, line 16, after the word "doing" to insert "whether the holding is situate within a town or built upon or not." It is necessary to insert these words, so that the exemption from the right of pre-emption given by the Bill as it stands may not be increased, and I move the insertion of these words.
Amendment agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have another Amendment to move to meet the point raised by my noble Friend (Viscount Galway) with regard to the pre-emption in the case of any land which has been acquired by the County Council for agricultural purposes, and is found not to be suitable for agricultural purposes. My noble Friend raised the point that it would be possible that the County Council, before offering the right of pre-emption to the previous owner, would build upon the land or might use it for other than agricultural purposes.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Or sell it as building land.
EARL CADOGAN: And, therefore, to give the right of pre-emption to the previous owner as building land. In order to provide against that contingency I propose in line 21, after the word "section," to insert, "before any such buildings or works as aforesaid are erected or executed on the land proposed to be sold."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The object of the Amendment seems to me quite right; but do I rightly understand that it would compel the County Council, in every case where buildings are to be erected, to come to the previous owner?
EARL CADOGAN: That is not quite the object. The object is that the County Council acquire the land as being suitable for agricultural purposes; and, having acquired it, it is found that some portion of that land is not suitable for agricultural purposes. It was then provided that they should sell it, but that there should be a right of preemption to the previous owner, and, I think in the second instance, to the contiguous owner; therefore it was found necessary to provide that the County Councils should not enter into building speculations which should oblige the previous owner to buy back his own land at building land prices.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The operation is that where the County Council think it necessary to erect buildings, in order to sell or let the land, in those cases they must offer it to the previous owner.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: That is before they erect buildings upon it; otherwise they might have bought the land at an agricultural price, and might sell it back at a building land price.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think that is very desirable.
EARL CADOGAN: If I may I will put it in still wider words: "before they use it for purposes other than agricultural."
Amendment agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: There is a purely verbal Amendment to Clause 20, page 10, line 2, to leave out "their" and insert "its."
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with Amendments; to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this is a Bill brought forward by Her Majesty's Government in fulfilment of a pledge made I think to the noble and learned Lord opposite last year. The object of the Bill is substantially the same as that of last year, namely to put the occupier, under certain circumstances, in the position of the owner for the purpose of carrying out the Drainage Acts. When the noble and learned Lord brought in the Bill last year he was kind enough to withdraw it.
LORD HERSCHELL: I brought before this House the Bill as carried in the other House.
EARL CADOGAN: But the noble Lord had charge of it in this House and withdrew it on a pledge that we would produce a Bill this year. This Bill is substantially the same as that; but there are two changes in it which are intended to meet the objections raised by the noble Lord (Marquess of Waterford). In Clause 3, lines 12 to 16 have been added, giving to the proprietors the same powers as they have at present of putting a veto on the formation of a drainage district, provided that the owners of one-third of the land implicated record a vote of dissent from the scheme. In other words, I must point out to my noble Friend that, if a sufficient number of tenants may vote for a scheme, the landlord still has the power of veto. Then the other Amendment which we have introduced in the Bill is to be found in Clause 6. By last year's Bill, if the tenant's interest was determined, following that which was then believed to be the law, the landlord became liable to the charge of arrears thereof; but, by the present Bill, in the future, if the interest of the person primarily liable is determined, then the rent-charge and one year's arrears only are to become a charge on the landlord. The noble and learned
1540
Lord will remember that there was a matter before the Courts at the time, and it is in consequence of the decision then arrived at that we have introduced this Amendment in the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Cadogan.)
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I think this is a much better Bill than that of last year; but still I have objections to certain clauses. I object very much to the proposal that the landlord is to pay one year's arrears. I cannot see why that should be inserted. And why, at the termination of the tenancy, when the landlord is likely to be put to a large amount of expense, should he be charged for one year's arrears for work from which he has obtained no benefit? The effect will simply be that the Drainage Board will never attempt to collect the last year's arrears. When a tenancy is falling out at the end of a lease, or when a man is likely to be evicted, they will not take the least trouble to collect the arrears, but will merely apply to the owner in fee to pay them; it will save them a great deal of trouble; but I think it would be most unfair. Then the owner will have no power to collect those arrears from the outgoing tenant; he, the owner, will have to pay them in every case. I hope my noble Friend will agree to leaving that out. I object also to putting charges upon an inheritance to which the owner has never had anything to say. While I think this Bill is very much better in respect of the landlords, in that a certain number of them may object to the drainage improvements being made, at the same time I think they should not be charged with these arrears. The Public Works Department will have no inducement whatever to keep up the maintenance of the work if they can make those charges upon the fee. Then I have attempted to understand Clause 8, but I have been perfectly unable to do so. It seems that the Board have got into some difficulty and have put in that clause to get them out of it; but it is difficult to understand what the advantage of the clause is. I have consulted others who know about these Acts and they have not been able to explain it.
EARL CADOGAN: Clause 8 is put in merely to explain the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Then there is another alteration in this Bill of which my noble Friend did not tell us in Clause 9, which enables occupiers to borrow as small a sum as £50 for a drainage improvement. It seems very ridiculous that such a small sum as £50 can be borrowed for such a purpose; it is only an inducement to these small tenants to borrow money. I think it would be very much better to leave the law as it is. At the present time £100 is the lowest amount they are able to borrow. My Lords, I remember the noble Duke whom I do not see in his place (the Duke of Argyll) protested against these advances being made to small tenants throughout Ireland, which probably would do the tenants no good and would not be satisfactorily expended upon improvements. I hope the noble Lord will not keep the clause as it is with regard to that. Then I will draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 10 which I think is much too elaborate in its present form to collect such a small sum as £5; it gives enormous powers of creating trustees and everything of that sort for the purpose of collecting a very small sum; and I think that might be amended with great advantage. Then, my Lords, I think there is a mistake in punctuation in Clause 12. If the noble Lord will turn to line 16, it reads thus—
"Means the sum for which a drainage Board assesses rates and taxes, the proprietors of the land."
I think the comma between "taxes" and "the proprietors" must be a mistake. I believe the noble Lord is putting down this Bill for to-morrow, and, therefore, I will put down the Amendments that I have named on the Taper this evening, if that will suit the noble Lord.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I would only say that this Bill seems to me to be a complete redemption of the pledge which was given by the Government when I withdrew the Bill of last year.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ACCUMULATIONS BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill that Clause 1 as it stood would have no operation, and that the words "loan" and "only" ought to be struck out, with which I think my noble and learned Friend was disposed to agree. But I have considered the matter since then, and it appears to me that even then this Bill would be likely to have little or no operation. It is only to apply to a provision under a will or deed (chiefly wills) for the accumulation of property for the purpose of purchasing land; it does not prohibit any other kind of accumulation, and it does not, of course, prohibit the investment in land of the accumulated money; it would not even render it illegal for a person to express to his Trustees his desire that they should so invest it, provided that he did not impose it upon them as a legal obligation. The real truth is, therefore, that anybody, desiring to do that which you are going to prohibit by this Act, can do it just as well, for all practical purposes, after the Bill has passed as before. If that was not the intention it seems to me that it should be carried out in some more effectual way than is done, or we shall be passing an Act with apparently the intention of preventing accumulations which would not prevent them at all. My Lords, I have had several communications upon the subject of Clause 2; I am not going to allude to them now, as we are on Clause 1, further than to toll your Lordships that serious objection is taken to the form in which the clause stands; and I would ask my noble and learned Friend whether it would not be well to defer this measure to the next Session, or the next Parliament, and really to consider whether there is any use in it in this form, and whether it could not be put into a shape that would render it more effectual?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that the Bill may require more consideration than it can really

1543
receive at this time. I do not know whether, if it passes through Committee now, it will be proposed to negative the Reference to the Standing Committee; but I think this is a Bill which ought to go to the Standing Committee. My noble and learned Friend has pointed out that, so far as the operation of Clause 1, as it now stands, is concerned, it would be so easily evaded as practically to amount to very little. The direction in which the clause points commends itself to my mind now, as it has done always; but I cannot help thinking that it would not be a very easy thing offhand to meet that objection, if the limitation as to investments in land is to remain at all. I will not go into any other criticisms that might arise as to the imperfection of the means provided for determining who is to take that which may be directed to be accumulated. But with regard to Clause 2, I must say that I certainly myself understood it not to be retrospective. Doubts, however, were thrown upon that point on a former occasion, and I am not prepared to say that the words "as from the passing of this Act" may not introduce such a doubt. Certainly I think it would be a very grave matter to pass a measure of this kind which was retrospective, without having clearly in view before you the cases to which it was expected to apply; and, if there is in any part of the country an apprehension that in any cases it might work injustice, that seems to me a cogent argument against dealing too heavily with the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in the face of the objections that have been made to this Bill, I certainly do not think I could ask your Lordships to allow it to leave this House without its having undergone examination by the Standing Committee; therefore I shall move that it be referred to that Committee; and, indeed, I should have taken advantage of the suggestion made by my noble and learned Friend opposite to remove the same objections myself. I assume that the Bill will have to go to the Standing Committee, and, if there we can agree upon something which will effect the object of the promoters of the Bill, I shall be very glad to have as-
1544
sisted them in their views. But, at present, I do not think it would be a convenient thing to amend the Bill as it now stands here. I shall therefore ask your Lordships to remit it to the Standing Committee.
LORD HERSCHELL: I do not know that this is the time to say so, but it is not very convenient to send the measure now to the Standing Committee to be considered. It is a Government Bill, and, therefore, the ordinary difficulties of private Members do not apply; but I should have thought, if it was a Bill to be pressed, it might have been sent up before. At the present time it is very difficult to get the Members of the Committee together.
Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

POOR LAW SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this is a Bill enabling members of the Boards of Poor Law district schools in Ireland to charge their travelling expenses. Those expenses are allowed in England, and there appears to be no objection in this case. I believe there is only one school of this character in Ireland; therefore I hope there will be no objection to the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Cadogan.)
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I do not wish to throw any difficulty in the working of these institutions, but this Bill appears to me most unnecessary. These Guardians are persons who have a great many public duties to perform without payment; they have to attend as jurors at Assizes, and at Quarter Sessions and at Presentment Sessions, and it is probable that they are just the men who will furnish our County Councillors in the future. I am not aware that it is proposed to pay them in any of those capacities. And, besides performing all those duties, they are just the men who find time to attend public meetings. And, my Lords, I cannot understand the object of

1545
providing for the payment of clerks of Unions; they are not officers of the district schools, and the District Schools Act provides for the salaries of their officers. And I think I understood the Lord Privy Seal to tell us that there was only one of these schools. The Act providing for these schools I believe came into existence in 1843, and all that time it has not been thought necessary to reform the law. It so happens that I was present last year with a good many Guardians at a discussion as to the value of these schools, and we came to the conclusion that it was not advisable to adopt them. The industrial schools formed under the Industrial Schools Act do a great deal of good in consequence of the stringent powers of the Industrial Schools Act; but these schools have no such stringent powers—they are worked under the ordinary Poor Law Acts.
EARL CADOGAN: I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord disapproves of these schools which it is intended to encourage, because, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it is very desirable to establish these schools which are created by the joint action of several Unions. It was pointed out that the Guardians of the Unions close to where the school was would very easily do the work in connection with the school, but that the other Guardians might have a long way to travel in order to take part in the work, and therefore it was thought not only desirable but just that their expenses, in accordance with the English law, should be defrayed.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
MARRIAGES ABROAD BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
POLICE RETURNS BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.
Report from the Committee, That the necessary proofs have been given: Bill reported with Amendments; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, and consequential Amendments to the Bill, agreed to.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ORDER (GLASGOW, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTON FEN) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order: Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order).
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.
NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to, with a consequential Amendment to the Bill; and Bill returned to the Commons.
ALKALI, &c. WORKS BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS AND BONDS BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
POST OFFICE ACT (1891) EXTENSION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow.—(The Lord Macnaghten.) (No 205.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 206.)
House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock.