Lords Sitting of 20 May 1897

PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he did not rise for the purpose of moving a hostile; amendment, or to ask their Lordships to reject he Bill. He was deterred from Inking this step not so much on account of the intrinsic value of the Bill, the acceptance which it was likely to meet with in Scotland, or the relief it was likely to afford to Private Bill procedure in Scotland, as from a recognition that the principles on which the measure was based were good and useful and should receive the assent of their Lordships. This Bill was one of a type too familiar of recent years—namely, a Bill founded on excellent principles which were generally accepted in the country, but often only recently adopted by supporters of the Government and agreeable to those who sat on his side, of the House; and when the time came to translate these principles into a Bill they found that the work was undertaken in a timid and hesitating manner. The provisions of the Bill were so hedged in by checks and safeguards, the whole subject, was so 'cribb'd, cabin'd, and confin'd,' that but little benefit was to be obtained from the principles, nor was any additional freedom conferred on those whom it was intended to benefit. He thought that Scotland had some reason to complain of the attention given by the Government to Scottish legislation. Members of the Government were very-fond of pointing out the advance which their opinions had made in Scotland, but so far the Government had not been very ready to recognise that opinion in the shape of legislative coin. Last year Scotland got nothing; this year it had received the promise of a Bill dealing with Private Bill legislation; and he supposed Scotland had to accept this Bill as representing the fulfilment of that promise. He could hardly believe that when the paragraph on this point was
874
inserted in the Queen's Speech this Bill was drafted, or was even in the minds of Ministers, because ths measure did not attempt, to deal with Private Bill legislation affecting Scotland as a whole; it merely nibbled one corner of the subject. He thought that the Secretary for Scott and had shown no small amount of self-confidence in the basis he had taken for the Bill. In 1888 a strong and important Joint Committee of the two Houses sat on this subject, and after hearing much evidence and giving the subject careful consideration they agreed to a report. That report had been put aside altogether. His noble Friend had founded his Bill on a draft report presented to the Committee by himself, though he admitted that his noble Friend had the assent of three other colleagues on the Committee, Lord Colville, Sir Joseph Pease, and Lord Stalbridge. These Gentleman were well acquainted with the necessities of Private Bill legislation, but he thought that they looked at the subject rather from one point of view. They were closely connected with the greater Railway corporations, and it was known that the great Railway Companies had always considered that it was to their advantage to have all private Bills considered in London by Committees of the two Houses. They had always set themselves against any attempt to deal with these matters locally and by means of local bodies. That being the case he thought that his noble Friend should have shown a little suspicion of his supporters on the Committee. He would have done well to pay more attention to the report agreed to by the Committee rather than to have adopted the report presented by the chairman and set aside. He thought that the limited character of the Bill was well shown by its title. It was not even called a bill for dealing with Private Bill legislation. If he understood the use of a Provisional Order a right it was to allow a municipality or corporation through a Department the right to make use of the powers of an existing public Act. That seemed to him to be a very different thing from the requirements of a Private Bill which gave to a municipality or corporation powers which might be entirely novel and which were certainly not necessarily contained in any existing Act. In order to commend this new procedure to the House his noble Friend

875
should have given a greater proof of the gain to be obtained from this Bill. He should have shown more clearly that the procedure would be more simple and less expensive The noble Lord gave no details as to the probable expense of the procedure. He should have shown also that it really would have done something effectual to relieve Members of Parliament from the burdens which at present were put upon them. In looking at the different stages which a Provisional Order or Private Bill would have to pass through he said that first of all notices would have to be given to all parties affected. Those preliminary proceedings were some of the most expensive parts of a Private Bill. Take the Glasgow Improvements Bill recently in the House of Commons. That was a Bill proposing to give the Glasgow Corporation power to deal with certain slums. It necessitated an enormous number of notices to owners and occupiers, even down to monthly tenants. These notices under an Order of the Court of Session regulating fees cost nine shillings each, and the total amount paid by the Glasgow Corporation for these notices alone was close on £1,000. One object of a Bill dealing with Private Bill legislation should be to try to cheapen its preliminary proceedings; and in this case notices might very easily have been sent out by post in registered letters to each individual at a cost of a few pence. He was told with regard to Sewerage, Gas, and Tramways Bills, similar notices were required to be given to all within a radius of 300 yards of the place where the gas works, tramway station, or sewerage place was to be erected, at a cost, also fixed by the Court of Session, of six shillings each. Thus they might have expected to find in this Bill that some process had been adopted of cheapening the preliminary stages in connection with matters only dealt with by Private Bills. Then copies of the Provisional Order had to be served out to all the Departments and laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Chairmen of Committees in both Houses next decided whether the subject was one which ought fairly to be dealt with in this Bill, or whether it should not be dealt with by Private Bill, under the old system. He imagined that this would involve the payment of certain fees to the two Houses. The next stage was that any opponent might claim to
876
show cause before the tribunal composed of the two Chairmen of Committees and the Secretary for Scotland why the Question should not be dealt with under this Bill as a Private Bill. The opponents he imagined, would be entitled to appear before that tribunal by counsel. They would be able to bring their witnesses, and to take full advantage of that stage to show why the old system of procedure should be adopted rather than the now. The proposal having passed through this sifting process, then the Bill again came before the Secretary for Scotland, and he had the power either to refuse the proposal altogether, or he might direct an inquiry as to the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the Commission. That particular provision introduced a new stage in an unopposed Measure, because, as he read the clause, the Secretary for Scotland had no choice whatever except to refuse to allow the order to proceed or send it before the Commissioners for local inquiry. After the local inquiry had taken place, again the Order was reported to the Secretary for Scotland. Again he had the power of refusing it absolutely He had the power of confirming it, or confirming it with alterations, as might seem right to him, and then again, the Order, if so altered, had to be again lodged in all the departments, had again to be sent round to all people interested, and more time and expense in that way must necessarily be involved. After the Bill had received the Secretary for Scotland's sanction, any opponent might again come in. He might claim that instead of the Order receiving the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland by his mere fiat, there should be a confirming Bill in the Houses of Parliament. If that request were made the Secretary for Scotland was bound to introduce a confirming Bill in Parliament, and that Bill had to be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. Before that Joint Committee the whole procedure now in force before Private Bill Committees came into play. In all this he failed to see that there would be much saving in time or money, or any gain in simplicity of procedure, nor any great saving of labour to Members of Parliament as regards attendance on Committees. And for this reason, that they submitted the proposals under this

877
Bill to a searching sifting in the earlier' stages, a sifting that would cause most, of the more important proposals to be treated as Private Bills and referred to select Committees of Parliament in the same way as at present. Again, would it be possible under this Bill to deal with a number of subjects in one Order, as in the case of an omnibus Bill? His noble Friend had shown ingenuity in setting up a kind of Committee of Selection, which was to select the panel from which Commissioners were to be chosen for local inquiries. If his noble Friend should succeed in finding a Committee of Selection which would have the same recognised authority as the Committee of Selection in the other House of Parliament he would deserve congratulations on his achievement, and he should be glad to help him in attaining it. He entered, however, a word of protest as to including a Sheriff or Judge on the Commissions. His own belief was that they should keep the legal element out of these Commissions altogether. They should be composed of men of affairs, and the nearer they could bring the local committee to the present constitution of Committees of Parliament the better would it be and the greater assent would there be to their decisions. He was sorry his noble Friend had not thought, of a better way of obtaining the opinion of the burghs. The convention of Royal Burghs was theoretically an admirable body no doubt, but its views by no means commanded the assent of the whole of the burghs of Scotland, and, indeed, practically it had largely fallen into the hands of what he might call a clique. The fault he had to find with regard to the whole of the four members who were to act as a Committee of Selection—two being selected by conveners of counties and two by the Convention of Royal Burghs —was that all fonr would almost certainly belong to the Conservative Party. If they had such a Committee of Selection chosen entirely from one Party its decisions would not command the assent of the people of Scotland. Whether they chose rightly or wrongly it would be liable to criticism which would weaken the authority of the panel it would have to choose. What was to be the life of the Committee of Selection?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR): Sub-section (d) of Section 4 is intended to cover that point. It is to be re-convened at the end of five years.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the point was not made clear. So far as appeared from the section the same four men chosen when the Act came into operation might go on to the end of all time. There had been no time since the Bill was introduced to gather any real expression of Scotch opinion with regard to it. He had endeavoured to do so, and as far as he had gathered it the general opinion of all parties was that the Bill was not sufficient, and would not satisfy the natural desires of the people of Scotland. He therefore appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to give up all idea of passing the Bill this Session. Let it be discussed and referred to a Select Committee, and after that go through its further stages; let the Bill as so amended remain before the country during the autumn, and then the House would be in a better position to deal with the subject next year. He could assure his noble Friend that he should be only too glad in a reasonable manner to give him all such assistance as he could desire, in obtaining a thoroughly good Measure for the reform of Scotch Private Bill procedure.
*THE EARL OF MORLEY (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said that he wished to acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Lord in showing him the Bill some time ago, together with the criticisms which he had received with reference to it. He could assure the noble Lord that any remarks which he might make upon the Bill, would be made in no unfriendly spirit. Of course the present system of Private Bill legislation was not ideally perfect. There were complaints, not only that it consumed too much of the time of Parliament—this did not apply to this House so much as to the House of Commons, though he found no burning desire on the part of the noble Lords to take part on Private Bill Committees; but also, and this was more important, as to the expense, delay, and inconvenience which was caused to promoters and opponents. In addition, with respect to Ireland and Scotland, there was the sentimental desire of the inhabitants of those countries to have

879
their Private Bill legislation localised. He was strongly of opinion that with regard to Private Bill legislation generally, there were reforms which might considerably simplify and cheapen the procedure. He argued that it was very-desirable, if possible, to shorten and cheapen the process of advertising and serving notices; but no noble Lord would desire that any person's property should be affected without due notice. ["Hear, hear!"] Then he believed that the system of Provisional Orders might be further extended with advantage. At present that system had been decidedly successful; but of course it covered only a small portion of ground of private legislation. He was very much struck with the increase of the application by small municipalities to Parliament for legislation. He would suggest to those who were responsible for the Local Government and Home Office administration, that some alteration and extension of the present Public Health Acts might render it absolutely unnecessary for many of these costly applications to be made. ["Hear, hear !"] As to the Bill itself, he looked upon it as a step in the direction of increasing the scope and field for Provisional Orders, and he should not be doing his duty if he did not explain to the House, what he thought the result of the Bill would be —and its scope was much wider than Lord Tweedmouth seemed to suppose. He should also suggest certain amendments, as at a later stage he would not be able to address the House. The normal system contemplated by the Bill was that Scotch Private Bills would be dealt with generally by the Secretary for Scotland and the Commission of Inquiry. There would be notices, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary for Scotland and his coadjutors from making such regulations as they thought fit for the issue of such notices. There would be Standing Orders which would have to be complied with, and an examiner to certify that they had been complied with. The Order would go through the local inquiry and then, if approved by the Secretary for Scotland, it became law and had the force of a statute. The only contact which these Orders in the normal state would have with Parliament was at two stages of their existence—at the
880
tme of their birth and at the time that they assumed almost their final form, when they would be deposited in the Private Bill Offices. Bills not dealt with in this simple way would be brought before Parliament under two conditions. The first condition, was when the Secretary of State and the Chairman of Committees of the two Houses should be of opinion that the Order ought to come before Parliament as an ordinary Private Bill; but in the first place an appeal to that effect should have been lodged by the promoters or by the opponents. He did not imagine that the hearings of these appeals would be expensive. The question would be decided by the Secretary for Scotland and the two Chairmen on reading the Bill, and any documents which they might call. Then again, before, the Order assumed its final form, an opponent was to have an opportunity of petitioning the Secretary for Scotland and in that event the Order was to be referred to Parliament to go through the ordinary forms of a Provisional Order Bill, with this difference—that it would be submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses instead of to a Committee of each House. The Joint Committee would have ample powers to give costs by a simple majority; and that would have a very deterrent effect upon petitioners. The effect of these proposals undoubtedly was to transfer in the case of all Bills that did not come before Parliament, all the power now vested in the Legislature to the Secretary for Scotland. ["Hear, hear" !] It was true that the Orders were to be deposited in the offices of the Chairmen of the two Houses. But the position of things now was that the Departments of the State reported to Parliament; and under these proposals that position of things would be reversed. The Chairmen would have power to report to the Secretary for Scotland, but there would be no obligation on him to attend to their recommendations. Therefore a large part of the power now vested in the Legislature would be transferred to a branch of the executive. Some persons were a little apt to leave out of sight the importance of the present procedure on unopposed Bills and the unopposed portions of opposed Bills. At present all such Bills were read before the beginning of the Session in the office of the Chairman of each House. They

881
were noted, and the agents of the promoters were interviewed on the notes; and exception was taken to anything which appeared to be contrary to the public interest, to the practice of Parliament, or to the usual form in which Bills were presented. Points of the greatest importance almost always arose in connection with unopposed Bills, and under the proposals of Mr. Balfour neither he nor the Chairman of the House of Commons would have any opportunity of seeing the Reports of Public Departments or of interviewing the promoters and their agents. Their reading of the Bills must be much more perfunctory. Too much stress had been laid on the importance of the model Bills. They were good guides to the draftsman, but they were not intended to be-rigid, and their clauses had to be adapted to new circumstances and combinations of circumstances. There was an important series of Bills this year—dealing with the laying down of electrical tramways— and with respect to these, very considerable alterations had been made in the model clauses. Then the model Bills by no means covered the whole ground of private Bill legislation. It was more important to keep to the established practice of Parliament, and to prevent provisions being put into Private Bills which ought not to be there. For instance, attempts were not infrequently made to introduce the punishment of imprisonment for a breach of the regulations of municipalities, and it had always been held that that was not a proper provision for Private Bills. Then, too, clauses were sometimes introduced extending the investments in which trustees might legally invest. All these questions were very important, they were hardly ever opposed, and they had to be dealt with with very great care and circumspection. But he would remind the House that, when he dealt with them as Chairman of Committees, he was absolutely responsible to Parliament. He was acting in large measure on the advice of an experienced legal adviser and on the, reports of the public offices, and if his decisions or the decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons were wrong, they could always be appealed against in Parliament. That would not be the case with the Secretary for Scotland
882
under this Bill, for the Bill placed him in a position much stronger and more irresponsible. There was another point in regard to the Secretary for Scotland's position—that was his relation to the other public departments. For instance, the Board of Trade had now power to issue Provisional Orders and pass confirming Acts through Parliament, though that power was limited to works the estimates of which did not exceed a certain sum. Under this Bill, as he understood it, the Secretary for Scotland would have power to order such works as the Board of Trade were now qualified to order, of any size, or of any importance; but he would not have the advantage of the expert advice which the Board of Trade enjoyed in those matters. He suggested to his noble Friend, whether it would not be possible to give within their own jurisdiction concurrent power to the Board of Trade to draw these Provisional Orders; otherwise he would be authorised to issue Orders dealing with larger matters than the Board of Trade, though he had neither the staff nor the experience to deal with them possessed by that Department. He would also remind the House that at present Bills were drawn by experienced agents, who were responsible to the House and to him for the manner in which the work was done. In future, if this Measure were passed, Bills would not be drawn by persons so experienced in Parliamentary practice and law. The result would be, that the Orders as presented to the Secretary for Scotland would require a good deal more careful revision and criticism than the Bills which were introduced into Parliament at the present time. He thought it was certain that discrepancies would arise; between the Orders of the Secretary for Scotland and the Bills passed by Parliament. It was a question for Parliament to decide whether the simplification of procedure and the increased economy with which promoters would obtain their objects was not more than a compensation for this want of uniformity and this looseness of procedure. The only suggestion he could make whereby uniformity could be secured, and the control of Parliament, even in a slight degree, retained, was that all Orders, whether opposed or

883
unopposed, should, as at present, pass through Parliament in confirming Bills, but if they had been before subject to local inquiry it should be contrary to the Standing Orders that at any stage in Parliament an opponent should appear against the Bill. He did not believe that would add to the cost or delay, and at any rate it would retain over these Bills a certain control on the part of Parliament, which would be capable of being exercised if occasion required. He was rather afraid that the noble Lord would say that this was contrary to the principle of his Bill. But he threw it out as a suggestion, and it was the only one he could make by which the control of Parliament could be retained to some extent without unnecessary expense. If that was not possible, he would at least suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should report to Parliament the proceedings taken in cases under this Bill. He was strongly in favour of the local inquiry as in matters of small moment a valuable method of getting at the truth; but in the case of large and important bills he did not expect much cheapness. He though it would be found by experience to be far more expensive to transport expert witnesses and legal advisers to distances from London and Edinburgh than it would be to transport non-expert witnesses to those centres. He did not think the experience of the Light Railways Commission was very promising in the matter of making local inquiries cheap. The panel from which the Commission was chosen was to consist of twelve men— six of them were to be versed in the matters to be dealt with and six wore to be men of affairs. Was not the distinction too finely drawn between the two classes of Commissioners? He would suggest whether it would not be well to say "twelve competent persons." The second criticism he had to make in regard to the tribunal was more important. He doubted the desirableness of appointing a lawyer as Chairman of the Commission, especially one of such preponderating influence as a Judge or Sheriff. He suggested that it might be desirable on several grounds to attach a legal assessor to the Commission, who would both act as legal adviser to the Secretary for Scotland, and as a convenient medium of communication between him
884
and The Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses of Parliament. Further, such an adviser would give some element of permanence to the Commission, for he would preserve its traditions, practices, and forms, and they were both numerous and important. Under Clause 7 it appeared to him doubtful whether the Secretary for Scotland would have any power to make modifications in an Order except those which were rendered necessary by the recommendation of the Commission; and he thought it was absolutely necessary that the Secretary for Scotland should have authority to introduce such modifications as might be required to bring a Bill into its proper and regular form. He would also like to point out to his noble Friend that under the Bill as at present the Chairmen of the two Houses would have no opportunity of seeing whether their suggestions as to Orders had been carried into effect or not. He wished to express his strong approval of the suggestion that after an Order had passed through the local inquiry it should only pass through one Committee in Parliament. He would, indeed, be very glad if eventually the system of Joint Committees of both Houses might have larger extensions than it had in this Bill. It would save a great deal of the time of Parliament, and also a great deal of expense on the part of suitors. Another point was that it rested with the opponents or the promoters of Bills to ask the Secretary of State that they should be introduced as Private Bills rather than as Orders, he ventured to think the Secretary of State or some one else ought to have the power on his own initiative to send a Bill as a Private Bill to Parliament. [" Hear, hear !"] He did not think it would occur in many cases. This year Scottish Private Bill legislation consisted altogether of 30 Bills, of which one related to a public company—and that was a class of Bill which he thought should be dealt with by Parliament—three related to large municipalities that were not included now in the Police of Scotland Act, 12 related to railways, and 14 to other matters. His own impression was that there were very few of these which would have come to Parliament; most of them would have come under the purview of the noble

885
Lord's Act, and, indeed, he thought a very large proportion of Scottish private legislation would be so dealt with. The effect undoubtedly would in all ordinary cases to transfer the legislative power from Parliament to the Secretary of State. He quite admitted that it was a very well considered attempt in the direction of the reform which was desired, and that it would very materially assist the Scottish suitors, especially in small and purely local matters. He could not help feeling, however, a little misgiving at so large a transference of power from the Legislature to the executive. ["Hear, hear !"] He confessed he should like to see some control in Parliament over the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he saw none at all in this Bill, he should like to have seen the process of Scottish as well as English and Irish legislation cheapened and simplified, while retaining Parliamentary control, which might he exercised as the occasion arose, over that legislation. It would be interesting to see what the opinion of Scottish constituencies would be. The Bill was very important and far-reaching, because, if adopted, it would certainly be used as a precedent for other parts of the United Kingdom. He trusted his noble Friend would give them time to consider the provisions of such an important and complicated Measure. ["Hear, hear !"]
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he concurred with almost every word that had fallen from the Chairman of Committees. He thought tins Bill would have a larger effect and wider scope, than seemed to be supposed. He wished to lay stress on the enormous power given by this Bill to the Secretary for Scotland. He quite agreed with the authors of the Bill that it was right to proceed by Provisional Order, and thought that was the only direction that was open to them. But this Bill went further, and placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland almost absolutely, and for the first time, the whole Private Bill business for Scotland. Hitherto the Secretary for Scotland, who, of course, changed with the Government, had had nothing whatever to do with Private Bill legislation, which had been in the hands' of the two Houses, and particularly in the hands of the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means. The two
886
Chairmen, however, were placed by this Bill in a very secondary position. Even after an inquiry had taken place, the Secretary of State could refuse to issue an Order at all, and there was nothing to say that he was to give rhyme or reason for such action. He might also make modifications. He was then to send a copy of the Order to the two Chairmen, but there was no power, so far as he could see, to the Chairmen to make any alteration in the Order. He submitted that this control of Private Bill legislation was not a proper sphere at all for the Secretary for Scotland, who had ample occupation at the present time in the general supervision of public measures in Parliament, and in various very important executive duties. The powers which it was now proposed to give him would occupy his whole time, even if he were competent to deal with these mailers, but he submitted the Secretary of State was not fitted to deal with them, and had no experience of anything of the kind. With regard to administrative work of this kind they had very considerable experience of the Secretary for Scotland as an official—he did not refer to the noble Lord himself—and that was by no means of a favourable character. [Laughter.] Moreover, the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means were particularly well fitted to deal with this private business. He would suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should be excised almost entirely from this Bill; he referred particularly to the powers which were given him in Clause 7. Half of the members of the proposed tribunal were to be "persons versed in matters in respect of which Parliamentary powers were wont to be sought." If this meant lawyers or professional persons of some sort, he must enter a respectful protest against gentlemen of that kind being on a tribunal to decide matters of this kind. His personal experience, which he was sure would be confirmed by every Scotch Peer in the House who had anything to do with legal business in Scotland, was that an enormous amount of canvassing would be carried on by gentlemen anxious to have the six paid places for obvious reasons. In the first place, the position would give them a good deal of immediate business and some dignity, and if they obtained a position on the

887
panel their own private business would be indirectly promoted. Everybody would feel that one of these gentlemen must be the person to employ. He would be regarded as a person very much thought of by his Lord Provost, or the Convener of his county, or the Secretary for Scotland. The proposed mode of appointment was all the worse because it was unnecessary. There were plenty of men of business and men of affairs who would be quite prepared to undertake the duties without being paid. Unpaid men were likely to be better than paid men. He hoped this portion of the Bill would be given up in Committee. He deprecated the appointment of a Judge or Sheriff. A large demand on their time would be involved, and he did not think, with every respect for the Bench, that it was necessary that that demand should be made. They did not have legal assessors on Private Bill Committees, and he believed their decisions commanded to a large extent public confidence. He hoped that the Bill would be sent to a Standing Committee. It was most desirable in the public interest that the Chairman of Committees, Lord Morley, should be in a position to advise the House with regard to an important matter of this sort, which was his own peculiar province. If the Bill were considered in Standing Committee, he hoped they would have the assistance of the Chairman of Committees. As far as he could see, the Bill was a very considerable advance. It was not an ambitious Bill. As far as he could judge, it was a sensible Bill in the principle it laid down, and he thought it was likely to confer considerable benefit on Scotland.
LORD BALFOURsaid he certainly had no reason to complain of the manner in which his attempt to deal with tins subject on behalf of the Government had been received by the House. There had been no attempt from any quarter to controvert the proposition that some reform in the present system was required, and the provisions of the Bill had not been strongly criticised except in points of detail by either of the two noble Lords who first addressed the House; and the noble Lord who last spoke distinctly said he thought, after the previous history of the question and the previous efforts made, there was no resource left to those who desired to
888
attempt reform but to admit that reform by means of an extension of Provisional Order legislation. He himself came to that conclusion as far back as 1888. Thin was the Bill alluded to in the Queen's Speech at the commencement of the Session, and there had been no change of intention on the part of those responsible for the Bill. In regard to the shortness of time between the presentation of the Bill and the Second Reading, to get the Second Reading before Whitsuntide it was necessary, for various reasons, the noble Lord explained, to take it that day. It would be convenient that a little time should elapse between the Second Reading and subsequent stages, and no attempt would be made to take any further stage before the Whitsuntide Recess. Lord Tweedmouth was not hostile to the Bill, but exhibited a, tendency to minimise the reform which would be effected by the Bill. He himself did not describe it as a larger Measure than it was, for fear of exciting expectations which it would not be possible afterwards to satisfy. But Lord Morley put the matter on its true basis. It was his intention, and he believed it was distinctly foreshadowed in the Bill, that, if it passed, the system of legislation by Provisional Order would become the rule, and the existing system, as far as Scotland was concerned, would be the exception. Directions were given in the Bill to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of Committees that if any proposal which came before them raised a question of policy or principle, it should be determined by Parliament, and the procedure would be by Private Bill. They would have to consider, not whether it was convenient for promoter or opponent that that course should be taken, but whether the questions raised were of a character and magnitude which rendered it necessary to deal with them by Private Bill. Those acquainted with the subject knew it was difficult to define all the subjects that came before Parliament in the name of Private Bill legislation, that no course was open but to give some general directions of this kind, and that any attempt to define what proposals should be dealt with one way or the other would be foredoomed to failure. The Secretary for Scotland would be associated with the Chairmen of Committees in deciding the matter. It would tend to

889
give confidence to those in Scotland interested in the subject that the question whether procedure should be by Provisional Order or private Bill should not be decided on the prepossessions of the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses, but that they would have the advice and the tendency of the Secretary for Scotland to modify their decision in the direction of having more Provisional Orders and fewer private Bills in the future. He would not follow the noble Lord into his complaint that there was no Scotch legislation last year. It was not quite germane to the point before the House, but he would remind him that there was such a Measure an the Agricultural Bating Bill, which applied to Scotland, and Bills which applied to England were equally to the interest of Scotland, which was also included in the Light Railways Act and other Acts passed by the Legislature last year. He thought he had now said enough with reference to the point as to the Report of the Committee of 1888 having been set aside by him. He had put aside these proposals for this reason—on three or four occasions since the presentation of that Report, schemes which were founded upon it had been submitted to Parliament, but only in one case was a Second Reading reached, and in that case when the Bill was referred to a Select Committee of the other House, it was so changed and altered that the Government of the day did not proceed with ii. The real difficulty of the whole question was how they were to obtain the practical benefits of local inquiry, and at the same time preserve the effective supremacy of Parliament, and he agreed with the last speaker that the most hopeful solution of the difficulty was rather to be found in the Provisional Order system than in any other system which had been suggested. Lord Tweedmouth had told the House that the Bill to which he referred must have cost £1,000 for preliminary notices at 9s. a piece. That statement had surprised him greatly, and he thought that there must have been some special reason which they did not know for that heavy expenditure. His own impression was that such expenditure was wholly unnecessary, and that Glasgow, like other large cities employing town clerks, might have done the business at much less cost. But even if it were necessary now under
890
the Standing Orders to spend 9s. upon each of these notices, it would not be necessary under this Bill, because power was given by it to prescribe, the conditions under which notices should be given, and there was nothing to prevent its being prescribed that these notices should be sent by registered letter. One criticism which had been passed on this Measure by all those who had spoken was that there was too much of the Secretary for Scotland in the Bill, he thought that the position which it was proposed to give the Secretary for Scotland was rather misunderstood. It was not intended to give him unchecked power to do what he liked with the Bills submitted to him. As far as the opposed clauses of a Bill were concerned the intent ion was that the Secretary for Scotland should only make such alterations in the draft Provisional Order as were recommended by the tribunal which had heard the parties, and as far as unopposed clauses were concerned his proposal was that the Secretary for Scotland should only make such changes as he was advised by the Chairman of Committees were necessary in order to bring those clauses into conformity with the general practice of Parliament respecting Provisional Orders. If his intentions with regard to this matter were nor clearly embodied in the provisions of the Bill, there would be no difficulty in amending it so as to remove all ambiguity. There was a provision in the Bill which allowed any opponent of a Provisional Order to require that it should be laid before Parliament, and he was, in addition, prepared to consider the propriety of laying the Order before Parliament upon the initiative or demand of the Chairman of Committees of either House, although by this concession he feared that he might be encouraging criticism of the Bill us a measure of reform and relief. He had been asked whether an omnibus Bill could be the subject of a Provisional Order under the Bill, and he saw nothing to prevent it. The intention, in fact, was to include what were known as omnibus Bills. Being made up of a large collection of comparatively small points, omnibus Bills constitued precisely that class of legislation which ought to be the subject of local inquiry, because such Bills seldom contained large questions of principle. The noble Earl who preceded him in the Debate had

891
made some rather severe comments upon the proposed method of selecting the panel from whom those who were to preside over these Inquiries were to chosen, and he had criticised particularly the proposal respecting the appointment of a judge or sheriff. But it surely was desirable that there should be some one upon the tribunal who had a knowledge of the law of evidence and of legal matters. He was, however, quite willing to consider the suggestion that there should be a legal assessor instead. He had been sorry to hear Lord Tweedmouth's remarks concerning the choice of the conveners of counties as a Committee of selection. He trusted that the noble Lord would accept his assurance that when he made that choice he did not give a thought to their political complexion. He might point out that those who elected the County Councils in Scotland were almost the same as those who elected Members of Parliament. If the conveners of counties inclined more to his own political views than to those of the noble Lord, the fact remained that they were the persons best fitted in the opinion of the electorate to till the positions to which they were returned. He could not help thinking that it was unfortunate that the noble Lord should have raised the question of the political complexion of this proposed Committee of selection, because he felt certain that political considerations would not sway the minds of those who would form that Committee, and he always noticed that when people were put into quasi-judicial positions they made fair selections without regarding the political complexion of those whom they selected. But he was not wedded to this particular method of selecting the tribunal, and if a better could be suggested, he would give it most fair and impartial consideration. He was certain, however, that any proposal to submit the matter to the Executive Government of the day would meet with great opposition, because it would at once be presumed that the appointments were to be political. Replying to his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) he assured him that it was not his intention to assume any of the functions of the Chairman of Committees. Lord Tweed-mouth had expressed the opinion that to allow the Secretary for Scotland to remit a Bill to Parliament on the Motion
892
of one opponent was to give him too much power. He should have thought that the question of the power given to the Secretary of State would fade into insignificance when compared with so important a question as that of the right of a party desiring it to appeal to Parliament. Everybody agreed that in some form or other the retention of the ultimate control of both Houses of Parliament must be secured. The necessity for that was recognised in every Report on this subject, and by nearly every witness who gave evidence before the Committee of 1888. It was recognised, for example, by Mr. Pember, Mr. Beveridge, who was a Parliamentary agent, and by Mr. Pym, and all three were in favour of a much larger scheme of devolution than that now proposed. No man's status ought to be interfered with without the sanction of Parliament, and he would not be responsible for any scheme that disregarded that principle. He had now replied to all the points that had been raised. He was not disappointed at the reception given to the Bill. The criticisms passed upon it only proved how great were the difficulties in the way of dealing with this subject satisfactorily. He trusted that ultimately the Measure might receive the sanction of Parliament.
LORD HERSCHELL, while agreeing without reserve to the proposal that there should be a power of appeal to Parliament, suggested that a single individual ought not to be allowed to render nugatory all the proceedings already taken by the time his appeal was lodged. He also suggested whether, in order to prevent this action from being improperly taken, the Committee should not be enabled to give costs even by a majority against the person failing. It had been found to work extremely well in many cases not to give any absolute right of appeal, and yet not to leave the party without the power of appealing if he had a real case. In certain cases in the Privy Council, in order to be enabled to appeal, the party who desired it must come before the Judicial Committee and satisfy them that he had sufficient ground for appealing. The matter was always very carefully considered, and unless the Committee was satisfied that there appeared to be good ground to believe that the judgment below was wrong, the leave to appeal was refused. This course was

893
adopted in the Clergy Discipline Act, and he believed that where it had been adopted it had worked well. Would it not he possible to adopt the idea embodied in that legislation in such a Measure as this —not to give the individual an absolute right to compel the proceedings in that House to be gone through again as if there had been no inquiry, but to require that there should be a petition presented and an inquiry into it by a Committee. This would be a practical cheek on any improper proceedings to get rid of the work done before, and would be a more effectual one than the mere fear of having to pay costs.
Bill Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JURIES DETENTION BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Repoted without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
QUARTER SESSIONS JURORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to, Order), and Bill to be Read 3a Tomorrow.
INFANT LIFE PROTECTION Bill [H.L.]
Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for this day) put off till Tomorrow.
NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND).
LORD HERSCHELLasked Her Majesty's Government whether they would undertake at an early date to introduce a Bill amending the law relating to the municipal franchise in Ireland? He pointed out that towards the close of the
894
Session in 1895 a Bill for amending the law relating to the municipal franchise in Ireland was Read a Second time in their Lordships' House, the Bill having come up from the House of Commons. On that occasion the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland supported the Second Reading of the Bill. The noble Earl said, "On his own behalf, and he believed on behalf of his colleagues, they felt as strongly as I did the necessity which undoubtedly existed for dealing with the question of the municipal franchise in Ireland;" and the noble Earl expressed his desire that the Bill should be Read a Second time. The next stage of the Bill was taken shortly before the prorogation, and then the Lord Lieutenant opposed any further proceeding with the Bill on the ground that it was impossible to discuss it at that time. He ventured to point out that if the Measure was not passed then ït was extremely probable that those who had been pressing this amendment of the law for many years would have to wait as many years again before it was passed, on which remark he observed that there were cries of "No !" and "Why !" He thought that the incidents which had happened during the two years gave some answer to the "No" and the "Why !" A Division took place and the Bill was lost. The Measure was declared to be one which had the sympathy and the support of the present Government, and it wad regarded by them not only as a just and desirable amendment of the law, but as one which urgently needed to be dealt with. He did not think that there could be two opinions as to either of those propositions, and he would remind the House that it had always been, as they understood, a cardinal part of the policy of the present Government, and it had been constantly reiterated by them, that any measure of Home Rule for Ireland was absolutely unnecessary, inasmuch as any just and reasonable demand for an amendment of the law would meet with speedy response from Parliament as at present constituted. So much for the general aspect of the case. Owing to the difficulty which had been experienced in obtaining any reform of the franchise by general legislation, Bills had been introduced from time to time dealing with particular Corporations, and Parliament had in several cases, in view, no doubt, of the difficulty and delay which has taken

895
place in dealing with the general question, sanctioned the introduction into these Bills of causes dealing with the municipal franchise in the several boroughs to which they refer. These Measures had been passed into law. The precedent was followed by the introduction of similar clauses in a Bill relating to the Corporation of Dublin. The Measure came before their Lordships the other day, and by a small majority an Instruction was carried, the effect of which was to expunge those clauses from the Bill and to render certain that it would go down to the other House without them, therefore rendering it probable that the Bill would be rejected. This would of course, result in a very considerable waste of money. The money was wasted when the Bill was promoted with these clauses inserted last year, and the money would be wasted on the present occasion. It was on these special grounds that he put this question, because it seemed to him that the only thing which could prevent that waste of money was that the Government should announce their intention speedily to introduce such a Measure. If such an announcement were made and the Bill introduced, it was possible that the other House might be content to forego the course which they would otherwise likely follow, of rejecting the Bill by refusing to assent to the Amendments made by their Lordships. On the occasion he had referred to the Lord Chancellor spoke in favour of letting these clauses remain in the Bill at that time, on the ground that other Corporations had been allowed to insert such clauses in their Bills; and he believed that this view was supported by many Members of the present Cabinet.
LORD MONTEAGLEappealed to the Government to give a favourable reply, if they could see their way, to the question of the noble and learned Lord. This grievance which pressed upon these towns in Ireland was of much greater magnitude in one respect than any other grievance Ireland had to complain of, because it was peculiar to Ireland. The question of private Bill procedure was also a grievance in Ireland. The Chief Secretary, in answer to a deputation at the end of last year, gave a definite pledge that the question of private Bill legislation in Ireland should be dealt with. No such definite pledge had been given
896
as to the municipal franchise, and he hoped the Government would now give one.
THE EARL OF MAYOdid not gather from the noble and learned Lord whether he wanted the Bill spoken of by the Lord Lieutenant in 1895 or another Bill. What sort of Franchise Bill was wanted? The question was most important to the people in Ireland. He agreed that there would be a great waste of money if the Dublin Corporation Bill were rejected, and on that account only he hoped that the Bill would not be lost. The subject of Private Bill legislation, again, was a burning question in Ireland, and he hoped the Government, when the time came, would see to it, especially in view of the great costs which corporations and other bodies were put to in having to come over here to fight their case. If they could have private Bill legislation dealt with in Ireland it would be an immense thing.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHwas afraid the answer he had to give would hardly be considered satisfactory by the noble and learned Lord. He could only say that the Government, although they realised that the municipal franchise question in Ireland must be dealt with sooner or later, were unable to undertake to deal with it this Session.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACTS.
*VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proposed Commission on the Irish Land question would have power to examine and report upon the pledges given by the Government of the day on the passing of the Land Act of 1881; and as to whether the circumstances contemplated by Government which would raise a claim for compensation had arisen. In doing so, the noble Lord drew attention to some points in connection with the Land Acts. In the first place, he set himself to show the interdependence that exists among the various Land Acts; secondly, the difficulties of lawyers and experts in administering the Acts; and, thirdly, that there was a general consensus of opinion that there ought to be a general inquiry into the Acts, and that losses had been sustained by landlords, was supported by very great authority. With

897
reference to the first point, he recalled the fact that when Mr. Justice Fitz-Gibbon wag examined before Mr. Morley's Commission, Mr. Morley asked (Question 2969, page 140):—
"I think the Committee, so far as I can judge, certainly including myself, feel that unprofessional persons must be perplexed beyond measure by the enormous difficulties of construction arising from the interdependence of the various Acts which refer to one another, in and out, of which you as a Court I suppose must have felt the difficulty as we laymen. I should like to hear if you would be kind enough to tell the Committee an account of the relations of those Acts to one another, and any statement that you may care to make of the difficulties arising from those relations."
The answer of Mr. Justice FitzGibbon was as follows:—
"I can scarcely exaggerate the difficulty that has arisen in two ways. First, from the artificial system of definition that exists in these Acts, by which we have first to learn a special language before we try to find out what the interpretation of a particular erection is, we must know the language before we proceed to interpret it, and it is a foreign language to lawyers."
Mr. Edward Carson, one of the Members for the University of Dublin, speaking at the Surveyors' Institute in London in November, 1893, was reported to have said:—
"If there was one thing more than another that he wished to impress upon those who came into daily contact with this Question, it was that they would not approach the Question from the standpoint of English land tenure, but must consider whether more or less legislation was required, and indeed, first ascertained how existing legislation dealt with the whole matter seeing what the existing legislation was."
Again, Judge O'Connor Morris, writing in The Fortnightly Review of June, 1896, in the article, "The Irish Land Bill of Lord Salisbury's Government," said:—
"It does not attempt to place the land system of Ireland, at least in its most important relations, on a more stable and sound foundation, or essentially to change the legislation of late years, which has torn it, it may be truly said, to pieces." and further, "a Government which commands the field of politics might have made an earnest and thorough effort to set the Irish Land System on a better basis; ill its largest and most important province, to reconcile it in some measure at least with the conceptions of just and civilised law, to mitigate in part without doing violence to existing or recently acquired rights, the gross wrongs and the vexatious evils of an ill designed and revolutionary scheme of reform.
898
Legislation of this kind, however, must have been preceded by a careful, protracted, and impartial inquiry into the present state of the Irish Land System and into the operation and effects of the Gladstonian Land Act," ‥‥
Again he said:—
"Land tenure in Ireland must be thoroughly recast if the Land System is to rest on a sound basis.
Mr. Lecky, in his work, "Democracy and Liberty," says:—
"The Act of 1870 had many merits, but it admitted, as I believe, a dangerous and dishonest principle."
Mr. T. W. Russell was reported in The Irish Times of October 13th, 1894, to have used these words:—
"People talk about the Act of 1881. The Act of 1870 governs it at every point."
If they looked at the Act of 1881 they found it incorporated a great part of the Act of 1870. Any provision in the Act of 1870 not inconsistent with those of the Act of 1881 remain good, and the two, by Section 57 of the Act of 1881, "shall be construed together as one Act." What: did the newspaper which represents the Ulster tenants say as to an Inquiry? The Northern Wig of May 12th says:—
"If the Government decide on recommending a, Commission of Inquiry it ought to be a broad and general one, and not of mere politicians, nor of peers, nor of landlords."
When Mr. Arthur Balfour spoke the other day in the House of Commons he condemned all the Acts. What effect had that speech produced in Ireland? A friend wrote:—
"He (Mr. Arthur Balfour) in effect said, that none of the Land Acts can be any longer defended, and that the Conservative Party which, only tried to make them work, not approving of them, now see that they never will work, and must be superseded by some more statesmanlike, simple, and just legislation."
Mr. Arthur Balfour had, in the face of the country, made this tremendous admission, but, great as it was, he doubted if it was stronger, except that Mr. Arthur Balfour was the Leader of the Unionist Party in the House of Commons, than

899
the words of The Times that the landlords of Ireland demand an Inquiry into a
"state of things which, to say the very least, is altogether without a parallel in any country, civilised or uncivilised."
Now, he might fairly ask how long was Ireland to groan under such a state of affairs? Mr. Gerald Balfour, in introducing the Irish Land Bill, referred to the Act of 1881 as nothing less than an "agrarian revolution." Were the Irish landlords not only to suffer for this revolution, of which they were not the cause, but to be punished by having their property confiscated under the laws of England into the bargain? No words of his could strengthen the overwhelming indictment pronounced by judicial authorities, by statesmen and historians and experts, against the Irish Land Acts passed by the English Legislature during the last quarter of a century, and which if they were to believe the Irish tenantry, left them no better off than they were before. So far, he claimed to have shown that the Irish Land Act of 1870 and those, following were so closely knit together that if full and complete justice was to be done alike to landlords and tenants in Ireland the inquiry could not be confined to one Act only; and, further, the quotations he had given pointed to the need of a general inquiry into all the Acts to ascertain the losses suffered by landlords under all the Acts, and how compensation should be given them. He would now deal with the pledges given by the Government of the day on the passing of the Irish Land Act of 1870. Speaking of "Those who have set up perpetuity of tenure for the Irish occupier as their favourite scheme," Mr. Gladstone disclaimed anything—
"dishonourable, anything that intends any injury to another's on their part, because we have not a doubt that they have seen that inasmuch as perpetuity of tenure on the part of the occupier is virtually expropriation of the landlord, and as a mere readjustment of rent according to the price of produce can by no means dispose of all contingencies the future may produce in his favour, compensation would have to be paid to the landlord for the rights of which he would be deprived… But suppose for a moment that we put the financial difficulty out of view, what would be the effect of perpetuity of tenure upon the tenant? As I understand it, the scheme itself amounts to this—that each and every occupier, as long as he pays the rent that he is now paying.
900
or else some rent to be fixed by a public tribunal charged with the duty of valuation, is to be secured for himself and his heirs in the occupation of the land that he holds, without limit of time. He will be subject only to this condition somewhat in the nature of the commutation of Tithe Act—that with a variation in the value of produce the rent may vary but it will be slightly, and at somewhat distant periods. The effect of that provision will be, that the landlord will become a rent charge upon what is now his own estate. The Legislature has, no doubt, the perfect right to reduce him to that condition, giving him proper compensation for any loss he may sustain in money; the State has a perfect right to deal with his social status, and to reduce, him to that condition if it thinks fit. But then it is bound not to so think fit, unless it is shown that this is for the public good."
Did this not describe the condition of landlords and tenants in Ireland to-day? Speaking further on in the Debate, Mr. Gladstone said:—
"Well, now, let us look closely at the case of Ireland, and see whether, in good faith, without injury to any class, we can provide a remedy for these evils.‥‥And as we have afforded the occupier improved security of tenure, so also have we afforded the landlord improved security for his rent, and improved security as we think for the better cultivation of his land."
The then Attorney General, Sir Robert Collier said in his speech of March 8, 1870:—
"When they say that the landlord ought not to have power of ejecting the tenant except for non-payment of rent, and that the tenant has a right to remain on his holding as long as he pleases, what does that really mean but fixity of tenure—that is, that the landlord is to be deprived of his property?"
And again:—
"I believe the effect of the Measure will be, by giving the tenant security of tenure, to give him increased motives for industry, and, by giving to the tenant security of tenure, it will, at the same time, give to the landlords an increase of rent."
Mr. Gladstone had distinctly admitted the fact that his Land Act of 1870 took away from the owners of land in Ireland a part of their property and made it over to the tenants. In his speech of April 7th, 1881, when he introduced the Act of that year, he said:—
"With a supply of land in the market so much less than the demand, you have a state of things in which it is well worth the while of a man who has not got land as a means of

901
obtaining a regular subsistence and livelihood, to pay for obtaining it. That willingness of the incoming tenant, to pay enters distinctly into the interest of the outgoing tenant so long as he continues the tenant, us something he has to receive."
The principle of compensation was admitted by Mr. Gladstone in 1881, when he said:—
"If, as has been said. Parliament is about, to invade the property of Irish landlords, the question of compensation becomes a very serious one indeed, and one concerning which, if we are prepared to deal with it at all, we ought to speak in most decisive terms. If these classes, either or both of them, have a just claim to compensation in consequence of the manner in which these interests will be affected by this Bill, we are bound as a Parliament to give it them."
He would quote one case which showed clearly the state of affairs in Ireland. It was the case of "Bolton landlord," which was heard at Dundalk on February 11th last, to determine the true value of the holding. The holding comprised 79 acres, 2 roods, and 19 perches Irish. The rent £103. There were no improvements claimed by the tenant. The land had been let previously by the landlord to the tenant, and the tenant had paid no fine to get possession of the farm. On the hearing, the landlord produced two valuers, one of them Mr. J. J. Russell, who described the farm as in a very bad condition. He said:—
"There is nothing in the farm which usually goes to make up what is known as a tenant-right interest—no houses, no fences, no unexhausted manures, no improvements of any kind. On the contrary, a considerable permissive waste is allowed to go on, evidently will the object of getting a low rent fixed in a year or two."
After making allowances for repairs, etc., he valued the tenant's interest, or the true value, at £83. The landlord produced another valuer, Mr. MIlvaine, County Court valuer, Mr. M'Ilvaine, Mr. M'Ilvaine considered the rent was too high; he estimated that it would be reduced 25 per cent, two years hence: and he considered the tenant's interest was 15 years' purchase of the reduction. In all, he estimated that tht true value !would be between £400 and £500. The I tenant produced two witnesses, who stated that they believed the tenant's interest was worth from £1,000 to
902
£1,200, perhaps more. The Sub-Commissioners fixed the true value at £550. The question was, what was that £550 for? Was it not a part of the corpus of the landlord's estate, and should it not belong to him? There were no improvements claimed by the tenant. The evidence showed that the place had been grossly deteriorated, and was it reasonable and fair that a landlord, to resume possession of the farm, should pay the tenant this amount for getting his land back in a grossly deteriorated state? Surely the Act of 1881 never contemplated that the portion of the corpus of the estate of the landlord should be transferred to the tenant. Speaking as he had done, on his own behalf and on behalf of others, with a view to what was just between man and man in Ireland, and what was best for the whole community both in Great Britain and Ireland, he urged that a great wrong had been done to the Irish landlords, for which compensation was due; and, for the moment, the responsibility of action rested with Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I can only refer the noble Viscount to the speech which was made by the Chief Secretary in another place a few days ago, in which the right hon. Gentleman stated that the proposed Commission in connection with the Irish Laud Acts would be confined to inquiring into the practice and procedure of the Land Commission and the County Courts in fixing fair rents, and of the Land Commission in making advances under the Land Purchase Acts. At this moment it is impossible to give the noble Viscount any more details as to the terms of reference to the Commission, and I cannot now go into other particulars.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that those whose property had been dealt with would like to know as soon as possible the personnel of the Commission, the terms of reference, and the name of the Secretary to the Commission. As to the question of compensation, he believed that the Royal Commission could take that question into consideration, though it could not fix the compensation or grant it. He was glad that the matter had been brought forward.
House Adjourned at Seven o'Clock, till Tomorrow, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.