Lords Sitting of 23 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSIXESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC.
  WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING).
    LOWESTOFT PROMENADE PIER.
    Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5).
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:
GODALMING CORPORATION WATER.
  BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT.
    BEXHILL AND ROTHERF FELD RAILWAY.
    And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19).

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1).
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY).
    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
  GODALMING COEPORATION WATER BILL.

    BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred
    370
    to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the Orders made on the 9th of May and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed.
MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the Orders made on the 8th of June and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thareto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: the Orders made on the 9th of May and the 12th inst. discharged; and Bill committed.
FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported without Amendment.
SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYM COMPANIES BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords.] BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.

    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
    Reported with Amendments.

WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
Reported with an Amendment.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [Lords.]
Reported from the Select Committee without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [Lords]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over Monday next.
DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [Lords.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.
  WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 144.)
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
  HARROW AND UXBRIDGE RAILWAY BILL.

    IONIAN BANK BILL.
    LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW AND EPPING FOREST BILL.
    WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION BILL. [Lords.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 18) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    To be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    To be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Lord Harris.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS No. 2) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    To be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [Lords.]
House in Committee (according to order); the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  HOSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES PROVISIONAL ORDER (BORROWSTOUNNESS) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived: and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
PETITIONS.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
  Petition for Amendment of, of Corporation of Colchester; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of, of Vestry of St. James's, Westminster; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPOPTS, &c.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—EASTERN DIVISION.
  General Report for the year 1898, by W. E. Currey, Chief Inspector.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1899.
  Annual Series: No. 2,295. United States (States of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PILOTAGE.
  Abstract of Returns relating to pilots and pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 284, of Session 1898) (as furnished by the various pilotage authorities), for the year ended 31st December, 1898. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  LAND TENURE IN WALES.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, rise to call attention to the subject of land tenure in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to initiate any legislation on the subject. I think my first duty is to remind your Lordships that in 1892 the Welsh landlords asked for a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject which I have the honour to bring before your Lordships, but this Commission was refused by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government. In 1893 a Liberal Government came into power, and one of the first things which Mr. Gladstone's Government did was to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the conditions and circumstances under which the land in Wales and Monmouthshire was held, occupied, and cultivated. It was generally considered to be a very fair Commission. Lord Kenyon and Sir John Llewellyn, two of the best land-lands in Wales, represented the landlords' interests. Mr. Griffiths, of Pembrokeshire, and Mr. Richard Jones, of Montgomeryshire, two of the most respected farmers in Wales, represented the tenant farmers. The remaining members were Mr. Brynmor Jones, Q.C., M.P., a Welshman and a county court judge, well acquainted with Welsh life generally; Mr. Groves, chairman of the Monmouthshire County Council; Principal Rhys, of Jesus College, Oxford; Mr. Seebohm, the well-known writer. I was appointed Chairman, and we all took our coats off to the work we had in hand. The Commissioners were occupied in their labours for three years, during the whole of which time we worked very harmoniously and very hard. We sat 80 times in Wales and 19 times in London for the purpose of hearing evidence, and on 23 occasions the number of witnesses who were anxious to appear before us was so large that we had to sit in two Courts. On several occasions we sat from 10 o'clock in the morning until 9 o'clock at night.—In London we sat in private 45 times, and we examined in all 1,100 witnesses. Two landlords' protection societies, to watch the landlords' side of the case, were instituted under the management of Mr. Vincent, a barrister, a writer for The Times, and a gentleman supposed to have great influence on that

  375
  journal. No tenants' organisation for the whole of Wales was formed, but local committees of tenant farmers were formed in most districts, and they had the sympathetic assistance of the vernacular Press. Everywhere we found the truest loyalty towards the Queen and all the Royal Family, and everywhere we received the greatest kindness, civility, and hospitality, and we were at once struck with the good management and liberality of many of the big Welsh landlords, pre-eminent amongst whom, without a single exception, were the Welsh Members of your Lordships' House. Our Report, which has been criticised as being too voluminous, is divided into parts. Book I presents a general view of the conditions and circumstances under which land in Wales and Monmouthshire is occupied and cultivated, with a history of land tenure in Wales. This portion of the Report was compiled and signed by all the Commissioners, and is, I venture to think, a valuable description of the customs of the Principality in matters relating to agriculture and the farm, and is, as a matter of fact, accepted as a great authoritative work, and will, I believe, as time goes on, become more and more appreciated. Book II. contains the conclusions and recommendations of the Commissioners as to legislative and administrative action. There is first the Report of the majority, then the separate Report of the minority, and, lastly, a summary of recommendations signed by all the Commissioners, which, therefore, constitutes the unanimous Report of the Commission. It is only of this unanimous Report that I wish to speak, and I only need trouble your Lordships with four of the eleven recommendations which it contains. The first of these is more of a statement than a recommendation, and it is to the effect that Wales requires separate legislation. The words of the Report assented to by all the Commissioners are these:
  "We think that the circumstances disclosed in regard to Wales by our inquiry urgently call for legislation … and it would be expedient to deal with the case of Wales in a separate Bill."
  Again, in another paragraph, the minority say:
  "We are fully sensible that there may nevertheless be economic differences between the agricultural problems of the two countries requiring careful consideration."
  376
  This has been denied, but I can only say that those who deny that Wales differs from England are divided into two classes—those who have very small powers of observation, and those who have lived in England and not in Wales, or vice versa. The second recommendation is:
  "In cases of the death of the owner of an estate, or of the sale of an estate, the tenant should be protected by law in the occupation of his farm at the old rent for three years, instead of one year as at present, provided he fulfils certain conditions."
  Of course, the conditions winch must be observed are the punctual payment of rent and the proper cultivation of the land in a husband manlike manner. There may be objections to this recommendation, but I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the manner in which estates are sold in Wales. When it has been decided to put an estate into the market, one year's notice to quit to every tenant is invariably given, and often the estate is revalued, with a consequent increase in the rents. Notice is given to quit at Michaelmas, and the estate is generally put up for sale in the following June, when the auctioneer is able to say to intending parties:
  "If you purchase you have a perfectly free hand You may allow the tenants to remain at the old rent, you may raise the rent if you please, or you may get rid of the tenants within three months and put in your own men, or farm the land yourselves."
  Then the tenant must go, and all the compensation he would get would be under the Agricultural Holdings Act, which is generally acknowledged not to be worth the paper it is written on. Our proposal was that when an estate owner died, or when it is necessary that an estate should be sold, the tenant should be entitled to remain on his farm for three years from the date of sale at the old rent, so as to give him time to look round to provide himself, if necessary, with a new occupation, and so avoid losing the entire fruits of his good industry. This proposal, you will find, was recommended by the whole of the Commissioners. The third recommendation to which I would call your Lordships' attention was:
  "In the event of the tenant giving notice to quit, with the view, say, of getting his rent reduced, though he might afterwards make arrangements with his landlord to go on with the farm, or in cases of readjustments of rent

  377
  by the landlord, these should be constituted fresh lettings, and the tenant should be compensated for the improvements up to that date under the Agricultural Holdings Act."
  This recommendation, which was also agreed to by the Conservative members on the Commission, would secure the reform for which tenant farmers through- out Great Britain have fought so long—namely, compensation to the sitting tenant; and on any re-arrangement of the terms of the tenancy all that the tenant had done would be allowed for before the new rent was fixed. The other recommendation of the unanimous Report, which was intended to prevent capricious evictions, was:
  "Notice to quit should be given for specified reasons only, such as non-payment of rent and non-compliance with the terms of agreement, and if given for any other reason the tenant should receive compensation for disturbance, in addition to compensation for his improvements."
  It is generally asserted that in Wales there are no such things as evictions, but I will quote one instance that struck me very forcibly. A Mr. Jones stated the following case. His father, Elias Jones, of Tan-y-Castell farm, was the occupier of a farm within sight of Snowdon, in the parish of Dolwyddelan, which his family had occupied for over 500 years. He altogether held three farms, on one of which there stood the old castle of Dolwyddelan, a picturesque spot, in which tradition says Prince Llewellyn himself was born. It was acknowledged that the farmer had built the house and all the walls, and had reclaimed land on the mountain side. Mr. Elias Jones happened to be a Nonconformist, and he happened also to be a Liberal. He was unfortunate enough to fall foul of the parson—he voted in the Liberal interest in 1868, and was promptly given 12 months' notice to quit by his landlord, who turned him out of his house and home, and consequently compelled him to seek a resting place elsewhere. I do not think there is one single Member of your Lordships' House who would not admit that this is a sad and shameful story, but it is absolutely true. And after the man had recited this story he pointed across the table and said to me:
  "Mr. Chairman, the man who did this cruel thing was your own uncle, Alberic, Lord Willoughby De Eresby."
  Your Lordships laugh, but I do not think Mr. Elias Jones saw anything to laugh at
  378
  in it. I say, without fear of contradiction, that it is a monstrous thing that a man who is the owner of an estate should not be prevented by law from doing such a cruel thing as to evict a man without compensation, at 12 months' notice, whose family has been 500 years on the ground. My uncle inherited the Welsh estate which came into the family in the 14th century. Since that time the old house on the estate in which he lived, and which, by a generous arrangement with my cousin, Lord Ancaster, is now in my possession, has never been sold or let to a stranger. The owners of the estate took a great pride in maintaining the most friendly relations with their tenants, and I may mention, as an instance of the good feeling which existed, the fact that when my grandfather, who was universally known throughout North Wales as "the good Lord Willoughby," paid his annual visitor to Gwydyr he was invariably drawn from Bettws, a distance of three miles, by the tenantry on the estate. That feeling has been kept up, and now exists in a marked degree in the case of Lord Ancaster, my cousin, who, under our grandfather's will, inherited the vast estates in Lincolnshire and Scotland, as well as in Wales, which were added to already very large property in Lincolnshire. Lord Ancaster has kept up the traditions of the family, and is well known as one of the most generous and practical landlords in the whole of the United Kingdom. In the same year (1868) tenants of a whole district in Cardiganshire were evicted for voting contrary to the wishes and proclivities of their landlord. It will probably be said that some of these evictions happened years ago, and are now forgotten. It may be true that the landlords have forgotten, but not so the evicted tenants, who never forget their feelings on being evicted. But is it true that tenants have not been cleared off their farms during more recent times? In Denbighshire a Mr. Pochin bought a property 20 years ago when there were 25 tenants on the estate, but at the present moment, out of these 25 he has only four of them left. Only those with a knowledge of Welsh customs and conditions of farming can estimate the state of feeling which exists in consequence of these occurrences. I think I have said enough on this point, but if necessary I could give many more instances of people being turned

  379
  out of their farms unjustly. There is one further point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention—a point referred to in the minority Report of the Commissioners. In case of something like a general dispute on an estate between the landlord and the tenants as to the rents or the conditions of tenancy, the minority recommended that the Board of Agriculture should appoint a mediator to bring about, if possible, a friendly settlement. But, according to their proposal, he was not to have any compulsory powers, so that, after taking immense trouble in the matter, his advice might at the last moment be rejected by either party or by a few refractory tenants. This in reality meant an optional land court. These suggestions, coming as they did from Conservative landlords, made it very plain that the necessity for an inquiry as to how land was held and occupied in Wales was very urgent, and that drastic changes in land tenure were imperative. On the question of the land court I should like to say a word. I have made it a practice on my estates, when any dispute arises as to rents, to refer the question to an independent arbiter agreed to by both parties, and his decision is final. This custom, I believe, is also adopted on Lord Kintore's estates in Aberdeenshire, and works with the happiest results. I have a tenant whose father began farming our estate 50 years ago, and who has succeeded so well that he now spends £5,000 a year in wages, and occupies four or five farms in North Bucks. He complained of his rent, and said it must be materially reduced. The question was referred to an eminent valuer at Bedford, who went carefully into the matter, and reduced the rent by £100 a year. This the tenant cheerfully accepted, and he went on with his farms. In the south of the County of Bucks another tenant who farms about 800 acres also complained of his rent being too high. We agreed upon an independent valuer, who went through the farms, and in that case the rent was increased by exactly the same amount as the previous decrease. These instances show that landlords need not be afraid of independent arbitration, for there are honest firms of high standing who will do their duty in such cases fearlessly and honourably without seeking to do injustice to either landlord or tenant. My Lords, I have, with great respect, to thank your
  380
  Lordships for having given me this opportunity of laying before you the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission, and I have only one more word to say in conclusion. When I mentioned my intention of bringing this matter before your Lordships I was asked over and over again what was the use of doing so. People said: "The best you can expect is that the matter will be dismissed with contemptuous indifference; if you bring in a Bill it will be thrown out by an enormous majority, and at the same time will afford an opportunity for opponents of any land reform whatever to hold up the Royal Commission to ridicule and to misrepresent it as an ignorant, unfair, and partisan body created for the sole purpose of attacking property in general and Welsh landlords in particular." My Lords, I have no fear of this, for thirty years' experience of your Lordships' House has taught me that the great majority of Peers are always disposed to treat any proposals for the uplifting of the community with patience and consideration, however distasteful or unpopular they may be to some members of this House. Besides, public opinion on land questions is advancing by leaps and bounds. Every Member on the Opposition front bench in the House of Commons two years ago voted or paired in favour of Mr. Vaughan Davies's Bill to establish a Land Court, and, what I think is more important still, the Conservative candidate for East Denbighshire at the bye-election, having the support of the whole Unionist Party, of every parson and of every squire, publicly pledged himself, if returned, to bring in a Bill embodying the unanimous recommendations of the Welsh Land Commission. In a letter published in The Times on January 26, 1898, he said:
  "The portion of the Report which was unanimous contains little or nothing to which a Tory could object."
  I honestly believe that these recommendations, if carried into law, would do no harm to landlords, while they would give security and confidence to hundreds of farmers whose families have for many hundreds of years been building houses and walls, and reclaiming land higher and higher up the mountain side, and whose only prayer and hope is to be allowed to remain in peace in their old homes, in the land of their fathers, the land they love so well. I beg leave to

  381
  ask Her Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name.
  THE DUKE or ARGYLL: My Lords, with the permission of my noble friend at the head of the Government I rise to intervene for a few moments between the noble Lord opposite and the answer which he expects to get from the Government. I can assure the noble Earl opposite that nothing which he has said or could say on this question would be received with contumely by any Member of this House. We are all desirous of treating this question earnestly and seriously. I think it possible that, burdened as my noble friend beside me is with his enormous work as Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he may not be aware of all the facts which bear on this question. In the first place permit me to remind the House that the question of the noble Earl amounts to nothing less than asking the Government whether they are prepared to bring in a new Irish Land Bill for the Principality of Wales and the County of Monmouth. Just think what a question this is to put at this time of the session! We have now reached nearly the end of June, and the noble Earl must have known that the answer, so far as a promise of immediate legislation is concerned, must be in the negative. Perhaps the noble Earl wishes to know whether the Government will introduce a measure in a future session, but he surely cannot expect such an answer from my noble friend now. That is impossible. I will, with your Lordships' permission, place before the House some facts connected with the Welsh Land Commission which have struck me very much. The noble Earl has dwelt very much upon the excellence of his Commission, and upon the distinguished, at least excellent and worthy, men who were upon it. And he has represented it to your Lordships as being a body whose opinion must carry great authority. In one sense I fully agree, but in another sense I venture to disagree. and I take this opportunity of protesting against the system which is growing of legislating by Commissions—not merely governing by Commissions, but legislating by Commissions. What happens in a case of this kind? A Liberal Government is in difficulty. They wish to summon up their resources and to add to
  382
  them. They hear of some great portion of the community who are anxious to get something from their neighbours by the help of Parliament, which the Government are not quite prepared to give them. What is the result? They say, "Oh, we will issue a Commission to inquire." The result of that Commission is foreknown. It is generally composed of a majority of men of extreme, or, at least, of strong opinions. There are interspersed a few who have more moderate leanings, and one or two landlords are generally put in just to give the Commission an appearance of impartiality. Then comes the Report, not dealing with facts—that would be legitimate—but dealing with recommendations of the most fundamental character to alter, perhaps, the whole constitution of society. For that work such men, I venture to say, are not competent. It would require such men as the framers of the American Constitution to reconstitute society and rearrange the fundamental laws of property. The gentlemen upon this Commission were no doubt excellently qualified for ascertaining facts, and not one fact, I am sure, would they misrepresent for the purpose of their opinion, but they are not the men to whom I would trust such a great and fundamental question as this. On that Commission, with the exception of the noble Earl opposite, whom we all respect and regard, for he has discharged every public duty to which he has been called in an admirable manner, there was but one gentleman who, I venture to say, has ever been heard of, or probably ever will be heard of, outside the Principality of Wales, and that is Mr. Seebohm. With great respect to the noble Earl opposite and to all his colleagues, I contend that this is not a body to which we can safely trust recommendations of a character such as those to which he has alluded. I should like very much to know how many members of your Lordships' House have ever read the Report, which, with the evidence, extends to some 700 closely printed pages. I have never met a single noble Lord who has read, learned, and inwardly digested that Report. I do not say there is not a great deal of very useful information in it, but it is a most miscellaneous Report. For instance, there is a most entertaining chapter on the wild birds and wild beasts of Wales in the 10th century, and being interested in natural history I was delighted to read it, but I cannot see what

  383
  this has to do with the question of land tenure. I have picked some salient facts out of the Report, but I do not think they tell in the direction of the recommendations. In the first place, the Commission found that Wales had been less affected by agricultural distress than either England or Scotland; and, in the second place, that improvements in Wales are, as a rule, made by the landlord and not by the tenant, as in Ireland. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I take this from his own Report, and that fact alters the whole state of the case. A good many of your Lordships were very much exercised about despoiling Irish landlords of a great part of their birthright, and we always salved our consciences by saying that in Ireland all the improvements were carried out by the tenant. You cannot say that of Wales. There is another fact brought out in the Report which I regard as most striking, because it goes far to show that there has been very little distress in Wales, and that, on the whole, the condition of the country is good. It is this, that there are no vacant farms and no derelict farms in the whole of Wales. The noble Earl (Earl Carrington) says "Hear, hear." Very well; but what is the case in England and in some parts of Scotland? There are to be found farms which cannot be let because agricultural distress is so great that no profit can be made, and others which are worked by the owner with no profit at all; but in Wales there is an eager competition for farms, which forces up the rents. Who are the competitors for these farms? In England and Scotland we suffer from the competition of strangers and foreigners, who bring in produce and undersell us; but are they foreigners who go in to compete against the natives in Wales? Oh, no. The Commission does not say so; it does not even hint it. The high price of Welsh farms is entirely due to the competition of Welshmen among themselves. Does that look like a very unhappy condition of things? The alleged insecurity of tenure, at all events, does not prevent Welsh people competing against themselves. They wish for the farms in order to establish their sons and grandsons in a healthy and, on the whole, a desirable occupation. It seems to me a monstrous proposition to say that this is a state of things which requires revolutionary agrarian legislation. There is another element which increases
  384
  the competition for these farms—namely, the fact that they are mostly small farms, to which the working classes can aspire. I very much wonder who is the writer of the Report.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I ought to have explained that, having seen the disadvantage of a Report being written by the secretary at the dictation of the chairman, and thrown at the heads of the Commission, I asked the whole of the members to write what portions they would select themselves, and they did so. It is not, therefore, written by one individual, but piecemeal by the whole. It was put together and talked over line by line, and in that way the Report expresses the unanimous opinion of the Commission.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Well, all I can say is there must have been some gentlemen on the Commission who had very strange notions of intelligent and logical propositions. I confess that I have never read a Report so full of bombast and empty phrases, and I certainly have never read a Parliamentary Paper which was in some parts so utterly unintelligible. Here is a specimen:
  "With reference to the general economic management of an estate, we think that the influence of the landlord should be exerted towards emphasising its solidarity as an economic unit upon which a particular industry is to be carried on."
  I recommend my noble friends who own property in Wales to remember that that is the principle on which they ought to manage their estates. How an estate, especially a Welsh estate, which often extends from the top of a mountain to the bottom of a valley, and in which the principles of farming and everything connected with the land varies, can be "an economic unit," I cannot understand. The sentence I have quoted is nonsense. Let me mention to the House a circumstance about this Commission which happened to myself. I saw in the papers that a certain Scotchman, whom I shall not name, had gfven the most absurd evidence about Scotland before the Commission, and accordingly I wrote to the secretary and asked to be allowed to appear in order that I might answer some of the statements made by this gentleman. After some correspondence had passed I appeared before the Commission and gave evidence.

  385
  They were good enough to be struck with a principle I laid down, which I have often emphasised in this House in connection with the Irish Land Acts—namely, that if the State undertakes to take away a portion of a man's property for public reasons, the principle should be laid down upon which the land is valued or assessed. The noble Earl opposite and his colleagues agreed, and they proposed that the court should be guided by general rules and principles. I looked with great anxiety to see what these general rules and regulations were, but this is what the Commissioners say:
  "The first principle which should be laid down is that the court should separate the value of the land in its improved condition from its value in its unimproved condition—that is, its prairie value."
  I ask your Lordships if any one of you can tell me what prairie value is. I have tried, but have failed to get an explanation. I am not certain about the origin of this clap-trap word, but my belief is that it had an American-Irish origin, and that it means, practically, land which has no value at all. Prairie land may be the richest land in the world, and very often is, but the value of everything is in the demand for it, not in its own qualities. A prairie is a country where there is no settlement, where there is no population, and therefore where there is no demand for the land; and consequently what the Commission meant when they said its "prairie value" was absolutely nothing, as it would have no value. That is the first principle which this Commission says is to be considered by the new Land Courts when they are erected. All this is most miserable clap-trap. I am not going to follow the noble Lord in detail, but I contend that at the present moment no foundation has been laid, in fact, in argument, or in principle by the noble Lord's Commission for any revolutionary Land Act for Wales. That is what I say, and what I hope we shall heat from the noble Marquess is the conclusion to which the Government have come.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl who presided over the Welsh Land Commission did well in altering the date which had been fixed for his notice, because if the notice had, as was originally intended, followed Lord Inchiquin's notice with reference to the Irish Land Acts, the noble Lord, after
  386
  that discussion, could hardly, I venture to think, have proposed legislation of the same sort for Wales. Neither the Commission nor the noble Earl has shown any reason why Wales should have different legislation to England in this matter; if any place could claim exceptional legislation, it would be Essex. Wales neither requires it nor demands it. The noble Earl stated that the Commission was a very fair one, but my recollection is that it was considered a packed one at the time, and was composed almost entirely of Gladstonians with a set purpose before them. Several of the members of the Commission had fads, and did nothing but put questions which had no reference whatever to land tenure. If the noble Earl had been in his place last Monday he would have heard a lecture on the evils of irrelevancy, deserved by a speech of May 16th, but perhaps not on that occasion, and a statement to the effect that Her Majesty's Government had no time left this session for initiating any legislation, and that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government had a very poor opinion of Royal Commissions; and I certainly think the Welsh Land Commission has done more to bring Commissions into disrepute than any other Commission I can remember. The members touted for Land Courts and for complaints against landlords, and the noble Chairman touted with such efficiency that he had a complaint made against his own action in selling machinery belonging to his tenant along with a flour-mill. I hasten to say that he was completely cleared of this accusation, but that did not prevent him from encouraging others equally fabulous. Professor Rhys was also accused of harsh action, when Bursar of Jesus College. So far as I can see, the only purpose for bringing forward this question to-day is to cause agitation in Wales, and therefore it is a most mischievous motion.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have not many observations with which to trouble your Lordships. I am afraid that I must plead guilty to the charge in which both the first speakers enveloped the House of not having studied the whole of the Report of the Royal Commission. Your Lordships will appreciate the nature of

  387
  the task which would have been imposed upon any Peer who attempted to do that when I tell you that if that Report was placed before me now I should not be able to see any of the noble Lords on the opposite benches.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: You are including the voluminous evidence; the Report is not so large.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The evidence is by far the most valuable portion of the Report. I only wish to say, in answer to the noble Lord, that we have not the slightest intention during the present session of attacking the Welsh agrarian question, and I do not venture upon any prophecy as to the date when the desire will seize us. I do not myself think that it is desirable to have an agrarian measure for Wales. When the Irish question was put before us we were always told that Ireland was a highly exceptional country, and that the precedents which were created then would not be employed to the injury of property in this island. I am afraid that I always thought this too sanguine a view, but, at all events, such reasons as there were, to which I never attached great value, for the Irish Act, in no way applies to Wales. The proposal of the noble Lord was, I think, enveloped in unnecessary complications. He tried to persuade us that he was simply the mouthpiece of his Commission at the moment when it became unanimous; but he gave us a speech which, if it hail any meaning or object at all, must have pointed—and I do not think he will deny it—to the erection of a Land Court with compulsory powers. That is, to give to some persons a right to take money out of the pockets of the landlord and to put it into the pockets of the tenants. To legislation of that kind I certainly feel no inclination whatever, and I believe it would do nothing but harm. The noble Lord read us a summary of the recommendations of the Commission, and reading them over with some skill, I think, he tried to persuade himself and the House that the minority of the Commission had reported in favour of a compulsory Land Court. The compulsory Land Court is the whole kernel and gist of the matter—if it is not compulsory it is nothing—whether this power is to be given to any person, however selected, to take the money from
  388
  the landlord and give it to the tenant. To this legislation certainly the Commission, when it became unanimous, had not committed itself. Whenever a serious proposal of that kind comes before the House then we may deal with it in detail. I can only say now that the whole of the noble Lord's argument appeared to rest on the fact that the rights of property had been occasionally, it may be frequently, abused. But the same argument may be applied to all rights of property in all countries and at all times, and with reference to property of every sort. It is quite as forcible—in- deed, it is more—in respect of personal property as between the creditor and the debtor, whose proceedings constitute a great part of the business of the courts of this country. There are numberless cases of gross hardship where the creditor by enforcing his rights has reduced the debtor to misery and despair. But we have not yet been asked on that account to put an end to the right with which the debtor himself has invested the creditor, because it is known that if we did that we would shatter the progress and prosperity of the country and bring all commercial action to an end. There is no other ground than these occasional, and I believe very occasional, abuses of the rights of property, which existed to a much greater extent 30 or 40 years ago than they do now. This House, at least, has never accepted the principle that because of such abuses rights of property should cease. If a compulsory Land Court were erected all independent rights of property in land would cease, and therefore I do not believe that under any circumstances the legislature of this country would adopt so dangerous a principle in the Statute Book as far as it affects this island. I am afraid, therefore, that I can give the noble Lord no hope of an agrarian Bill. He mentioned some other matters that were recommended by a unanimous Commission; they did not seem to me matters of very great importance, and whether they are worthy of legislation I do not know without more careful examination, but the essence of the whole matter is a compulsory Land Court, and to a compulsory Land Court I am entirely opposed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Marquess in the last few remarks he made, admitted that there

  389
  might be, though he did not say that he in any way accepted them, recommendations in the Commissioners' Report apart from the question of the Land Court which might deserve consideration. With regard to the noble Duke, he is undoubtedly well acquainted with the land question, and has paid great attention to it, but he has always seemed to me to look at it from a single point of view—that no concession that can be avoided should be made to tenantry; that the extreme rights of landlords are in accordance with the principles of free contract, and ought to be maintained. He was always a consistent, conscientious, and able opponent of the legislation for which we on this side of the House were responsible in regard to Irish land, and the fault I find with the attitude he has assumed is this, that he has a set of economic principles which are to be applied, like the bed of Procrustes, to all and every situation, whatever it may be. If the tenant does not fit into the bed upon which he has to lie it is his fault, and he must suffer the consequences. I dare say he would say that applies equally to landlords, but I do not believe it is wise or safe to deal, especially with land, upon what I may call cut-and-dried principles. Of course, it does not follow that every proposal for reform of the land laws must be a wise one, but the general and steady and, as I think, undiscriminating opposition of the noble Duke to any reform is not wise, and, I think, is dangerous and injurious to the welfare of the State.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: That is not my position. I have supported several Amending Acts.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is my view of the noble Duke's position; it is my general deduction from the many very able and very interesting speeches I have heard from him on the subject. With regard to the Report itself, I do not think it is open to the criticism of the noble Duke, though he is a master of language and composition; but when he throws so much obloquy on the expression "an estate an economic unit," I venture to differ from him, and to ask him for a precise definition. I take it in its ordinary acceptation, and I do not see why an estate cannot be an economic unit. No doubt the noble Duke will say it is not an economic unit in this sense, that there must be variety of soil and
  390
  situation on a large estate; but that also applies to a farm. The soil and situation are not the same all over a farm, but I think the expression is sufficiently intelligible, and it seems to me not open to serious rebuke. For the rest of the Report, the noble Duke dismisses it with the words "miserable clap-trap." There is nothing so easy as to treat a matter in that way. I do not think the grievances of the Welsh tenants can be regarded as miserable clap-trap. My belief is that the Welsh tenants have grievances, and that the case for Wales consists in this, so far as I know—I do not profess intimate acquaintance with the Principality—the general condition of agricultural tenants differs materially and seriously from the condition in England. That would be my answer to the noble Marquess. I do not contest the view of the noble Marquess as to the danger of disturbing a system upon which we have for generations rested in this country; but if there is in one portion of the island a particular position, and a state of things very different from that to which we are accustomed, I do not think it is always wise or safe to apply a principle that may be safely applied to other parts of the country, simply from fear and dread that we may be introducing some economic principle not entirely in accordance with our general views in regard to land. I confess I am not thoroughly acquainted with the evidence given before the Commission, nor do I think it is necessary as a qualification for speaking on the Report unless the evidence comes within moderate compass. I content myself with reading the Report and verifying any particular part of it by reference to the evidence. But I remember on one occasion reading the whole of the evidence taken before a Commission. That was a Commission on Currency, a subject with which it is not safe to deal unless one goes thoroughly into it. Therefore I made an exception in that case. Though I have not read the evidence taken before the Welsh Land Commission, I have read the Report, and it is very remarkable. I sincerely trust that, whether it is dealt with by the present Government or afterwards, we shall not put aside contemptuously as unworthy of attention the grievances of the Welsh farmers. That they have grievances I am convinced, and these arise from a state of things we are not familiar with here, and I do not think we should lay it down that no remedy can

  391
  possibly be applied. The noble Duke said with perfect accuracy that the Report is founded on no allegation of agricultural distress, and that in that respect Wales differed from Ireland. It is founded on the grievances of tenant farmers, who hold their land under tenure they consider extremely insecure, and under extreme competition, and these facts show the peculiar position in Wales. The noble Duke asked me if it was usual in Norfolk for tenants to receive notice to quit when an estate was sold. I have never heard of such a thing there. Such a thing being done would probably result in there being no purchaser for the estate. Unlike Wales, we in Norfolk have extreme difficulty in keeping tenants, and it is still more difficult to find new tenants. The whole question deserves careful attention; how far it would be wise to go can only be determined with legislative proposals before us; but I think my noble friend is well justified in bringing the matter forward.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The noble Earl has mistaken my object in referring to the extreme competition in Wales. I quite agree with him that it differentiates the two cases, but the existence of that competition does not tend to prove distrust on the part of the Welsh people of that for which they are competing.

  QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY IN CEYLON.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies what notice the Government has taken, or intends to take, with respect to the proceedings of the Bishop of Colombo in opposition to his Metropolitan, the Bishop of Calcutta, in regard to prayers for the health of Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her eightieth birthday. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that the Colonial Office cannot take the same notice of a Bishop's action as they could of the action of a civil servant; but I earnestly hope that the Under Secretary will be able to say something, on behalf of the Government that will in some way remove the bad impression and the discontent which have been caused by the Bishop of Colombo's letter. The facts are these: On May 27th the Bishop of Calcutta wrote the following letter to the Bishops of his province—
  "My dear Lord Bishop,—On the 24th day of next month Her Majesty the Queen,
  392
  Empress of India, if her life be spared until then, will complete her eightieth year. I desire to suggest to your Lordship, as to the other Bishops of India and Ceylon, that special services should be held on that day in the churches of the Metropolitan Province. It is a day when the hearts of all Christians who are subjects of the Queen-Empress will naturally turn with devout feelings to Almighty God. The occasion is rather personal, perhaps, than official; but it will be none the less impressive if the services, without much form or ceremony, assume the simple character of thanks giving for a unique reign, and of intercession for a beloved and venerated Sovereign, under whose sway India and the whole British Empire have enjoyed a singular felicity. If my suggestion approve itself to your Lordship, you will, no doubt, issue such instructions as are necessary to the clergy of your diocese. I have no right to speak for others than members of the Church of England, but the desire for a religious commemoration of Her Majesty's birthday is already felt, as your Lordship knows, in many quarters, and it seems but natural that I should take this opportunity of expressing the hope that the other religious bodies in India, whether Christian or non-Christian, may be willing to unite with the Church in the manifestation of loyalty to the Queen-Empress, and of gratitude for the manifold blessings of her long and illustrious reign. The fact that prayers should ascend simultaneously in her behalf—not front churches only, but from temples, mosques, and synagogues, and other places of religious worship throughout India and Ceylon, will in itself be a striking instance of that unity for which we all, amidst many grave external differences, do yet in our hearts most earnestly long and pray."
  I will now read to your Lordships the full text, taken from the Reis and Rayyet of May 20th, of the Bishop of Colombo's letter, expressing that dignitary's view of non-Christian prayers, and why Christians cannot join with non-Christians at the celebration by prayer of the Queen-Empress's eightieth birthday:
  "Colombo, May 10, 1899.
  "Rev. and Dear Brother,—I have received, as you may already have learned from the newspapers, an important letter from the Most Rev. the Metropolitan. His Lordship suggests to us a loyal observance of Her Majesty the Queen's eightieth birthday, and expresses a hope that the occasion may be observed also by other Christians and by non-Christians throughout India and Ceylon. In accordance with our Metropolitan's suggestion I request you to notice the eightieth birthday of Her Most Gracious Majesty on the 24th of this month by the use of special prayers and thanks giving. These may be adopted either from the form of prayer for the 30th of June, or from the form used at the Jubilee in 1897. Whether our Christian brethren who are not of the Church of England make any special observance of the day or not, we are perfectly sure that their loyal and religious prayers for our beloved Queen will be acceptable to Almighty God. I must briefly state why I do

  393
  not ask you to join in hoping that, simultaneously with the prayers of the Church, prayers may be offered in non-Christian places of worship. The letter reached me on Sunday evening the 7th of May, and seeing that the Standing Committee of the Diocese was to meet on Tuesday, the 9th, I welcomed the opportunity of consulting its members about the Metropolitan's suggestion, as I have done in many similar cases. The following resolution was then unanimously carried in a meeting of our clergy (besides myself) and seven laymen, on the motion of the acting archdeacon:—'That this Committee, as representing the Synod of the Diocese of Colombo, while leaving to the Lord Bishop the question of holding special services on the eightieth anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's birthday, as suggested by the Most Rev. the Metropolitan, respectfully but earnestly deprecate any action intended to imply unity with non-Christian systems in religious worship or prayer.'"
  I omit the remainder of this letter, as it refers to matters that it is not usual to discuss in your Lordship's House. I would observe that the Bishop appears to screen himself behind what he calls a Synod and seven laymen. Was one of them the Colonial Secretary? The Reis and Rayyet concludes:
  "If this be Christianity, what intolerance and how ill suited to the occasion! It is, according to the insular Bishop, Christian blasphemy even to hope that other nationalities will, simultaneously with Christians, offer prayers for Her Majesty. All other prayers are idolatrous and unacceptable to God, who made the Christian, the Jew, the Mussulman, the Hindu, the Parsi, the Jain, the Buddhist, and everything."
  Commenting, on May 28, upon the letter of the Bishop of Colombo, the Indian Spectator said:
  "We have no right to inquire into what is so entirely an affair between a man and his Maker as his religious beliefs. But the Bishop of Colombo's comments on the Metropolitan's suggestion, which, we are glad to say, has been in a sense abundantly carried out—namely, that the professors of non-Christian faiths in this country should join in offering prayers to the Almighty on the Queen's birthday—seem to us to be so opposed to all that is holy in human nature that we may be pardoned for betraying some curiosity as to the Bishop's notions of the Divine Being. 'We believe,' he writes, 'these acts (the acts of Buddha) to be dishonouring to God, and to be in themselves—whatever may be the ignorance of the worshippers—acts of sin.' For the sake of the Bishop, we earnestly hope he wrote in ignorance of the life and work of him whom he denounces in these terms. The Bishop is much mistaken in thinking that God is dishonoured by the acts of Buddha; his sublime
  394
  self-sacrifice, his fearless pursuit of truth, his boundless compassion for the whole universal nature—if these be sins, we had rather sin with Buddha than shine with 'R. S. Colombo.'"
  I will conclude by reading to your Lordships the telegram which was sent by the Viceroy at Simla to the Queen-Empress, dated May 24th, 1899:
  "The Viceroy begs leave to transmit to your Majesty his respectful sincere congratulations on the happy anniversary of your Majesty's birthday, as well as those of the English officials of your Majesty's service, of the British community in India, and of the vast native population. No such number of human beings has ever before joined in tribute of devotion to a single Sovereign as will be the rejoicing to-day in India over your Majesty's continued welfare and long and blessed reign."
  Her Majesty replied to the Viceroy in the following terms:
  "I am deeply touched by the loyal expressions and good wishes of yourself, my officials, the British community, and my native subjects in India."
  The Reis and Rayyet, in an article on this subject, says:
  "The Bishop of Colombo would not allow Christians to join with non-Christians in their prayer's for Her Majesty. The manner of acceptance of their good wishes by Her Majesty is indeed touching. That truly queenly message to the Viceroy of India is an answer to the narrowness of the Ceylon Bishop, and we hope that prayers sent up by the Hindus, the Mussulmans, the Jews, the Armenians, the Parsis, the Jains, the Sikhs, the Buddhists all have, equally with those of the Christians, reached the Throne of the Most High, the King of Kings."
  The feelings of everyone in India have been very much hurt by the conduct of the Bishop of Colombo, and I hope the noble Earl the Under Secretary will not simply smile it away, but will find some words of regret for it.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the letter of the Bishop of Colombo on the subject referred to by the noble Lord, and which has appeared in the Ceylon papers. Her Majesty's Government, however, do not propose to take any action in regard to it.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFEC TIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL. [Lords.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, although I do not anticipate that any opposition will be offered to this Bill, it may be desirable that I should make a somewhat fuller statement of its objects than that which is contained in the memorandum which I have circulated with the Bill. The details of the Bill are based upon recommendations of the Departmental Committee which was recently appointed to consider the subject. Its object is to give to the local educational authorities power to make provision for a class which is, happily a small, but a most unfortunate class of children, who are termed defective, and who are incapable of receiving any benefit from the ordinary education in elementary schools. This class includes those who are feeble-minded, and by that term is meant not those who are merely dull and difficult to teach, nor, on the other hand, those who are incapable of receiving any instruction in school and who are absolutely imbecile, but a class which is somewhat between these two extremes. It has been found by experience that these children are capable of considerable improvement and of being made useful members of society by means of special classes, which have been in some places provided, so as to enable them to live with their parents and not to be taken away from the surroundings in which it is holed they will ultimately be able to earn their own living. The Bill follows the lines of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893 (56 and 57 Vict. c. 42), and applies, permissibly and mutatis mutandis, the provisions of that enactment to defective and epileptic children. In order to make these classes of greater advantage to the children it is necessary to extend the school age to 16, and the Bill provides for this. Classes of this description are exceptionally expensive, and in order to, justify the State in giving special grants to help to meet these expenses it is necessary that the Education Department should be authorised to approve the arrangements under which they are con-
    396
    ducted. The Department is by this Bill empowered to make special grants, but only upon such conditions as it may direct, and it is proposed that one of these conditions should be that children should have a proper portion of manual instruction, which those conversant with this question believe to be particularly beneficial in their case. Special day classes are the principal means intended to be provided to meet the case of these children, and it is obviously only possible that they should be established in large centres. For isolated eases of defective children in other parts of the country special classes, of course, cannot be provided. There are two alternative ways of dealing with them—one is to send them to board in town near to one of the special classes, and the other is to send them to a residential home for such children, a considerable number of which have already been established by voluntary agencies. The Bill gives facilities to local authorities to adopt one of these methods, and whichever they adopt will be subject to the recommendations of the Educational Department, which require considerable care and supervision in order to be successful. There are certain disadvantages in taking children of this kind away from their own surroundings, where their parents and friends are able to help them, and it depends very much upon the circumstances of individual cases whether it is better to leave them at home or send them away to be taught in one of these special classes. The school authorities are, by the Bill, given discretion in the matter, and the consent of the parents is a necessary condition for the removal of the child. In the case of boarding-out the Bill enacts that the district from which a child comes shall bear the cost of his education. As regards the institution, the school authorities may either start residential homes of their own or contribute in support of those already started by voluntary agencies. The Education Department would not look with favour upon very large institutions, and would very strictly limit their numbers. Besides feeble-minded children, the term "defective" includes those who are only prevented by some physical defect front attending an ordinary elementary school, and the Bill gives power to school authorities to provide guides and conveyances for such children. With regard to epileptic children, the Departmental Com-

    397
    mittee came to the conclusion that, unless they were also feeble-minded, the epileptic ought not to be taught with the feebleminded, and that an occasional fit of epilepsy is not a sufficient reason for keeping a child away from ordinary school. There is, however, a small class whose epilepsy is so severe that they are unfit for ordinary schools, and these children, unless they are properly cared for and trained, are likely to grow up to be useless, if not dangerous, to society. For such children proper training is recommended in a small residential home under medical care. The Bill gives power to the school authorities to provide for the children in that way. It also gives to any court of summary jurisdiction the power to compel the parents to send the child to such a home. The case of epileptics, as probably your Lordships are aware, is receiving an increasing amount of attention from many philanthropic bodies, and there is reason to think that suitable provision of this kind will, to a large extent, be made by voluntary agency. School authorities are enabled by the Bill either to provide these homes themselves or to contribute to the support of those that are provided by other means. The Departmental Committee considered that the special provision prescribed should be provided compulsorily: that is, that the Education Department should have power to compel the local authorities to make universal provision. The Department, however, feel that there would be great difficulty in applying such compulsion, and in some cases the expenses would be too great. Consequently this is an enabling Bill, and not compulsory. In all other respects, I believe, it follows the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
    LORD REAY: My Lords, I merely rise to give my hearty support to this Bill, and to thank the noble Duke the Lord, President of the Council for having introduced it. I hope it will be possible for the Bill to be passed into law this session. The results which have been obtained from the teaching of these children, when trained agency is used, are, I am informed, very satisfactory, and
    398
    any money which is spent in this direction will, I believe, yield a very satisfactory return.
    EARL EGERTON: My Lords, as this question came before the Departmental Committee on Blind and Deaf Children, of which I had the honour to be Chairman. I should like to be allowed to make a few remarks on this Bill. My noble friend the Lord President of the Council has mentioned that this Bill is founded on the Report of the Departmental Committee, but I think the labours of the private and philanthropic societies which have during the last ten years made investigations into these cases should be in some way recognised. The evidence given before the Committee was based on the results of the examination of 150,000 children. At least 1 per cent. of all the children of school age are mentally or physically unfit to be taught. In London alone there are 8,000 defective and epileptic children, and 42,000 throughout the country. I recently had the honour of presiding over a Conference of Poor Law Guardians on this subject, and a Bill founded on the lines of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act was recommended as the best means of dealing with these children. I therefore beg to thank the noble Duke for having introduced the Bill, and to express the hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
    LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, on behalf of a number of voluntary institutions I beg to thank the noble Duke for having brought forward this Bill this, session. Many of the voluntary institutions would be only too ready to make arrangements to take in the children for whom the Bill will provide if they receive some financial help, and I think the experience of the Continent shows that many epileptic children, if taken young and dealt with properly, can be made useful members of society, whereas they would, if neglected, become complete idiots. I am connected with an institution in France where the results are most satisfactory and many epileptics have been permanently benefited by scientific and kind treatment, and I sincerely welcome this Bill.
    On Question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  FINE OR IMPRISONMENT (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock