Lords Sitting of 26 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (Abandonment).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BRAY AND ENNFSKERRY 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Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn read, and ordered to lie on the Table.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 13th instant and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed forthwith.
LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY RILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
DEVONPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
  TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.

    GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIAL GAS AND SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES BILL,
    NOW
    METROPOLIS GAS (PREPAYMENT METER) ACT, 1900.
    SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported with Amendments.

    BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
    OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bills passed, and returned to the Commons.
    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and. passed, and returned to the Commons.
    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
MARKET WEIGHTON DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION BILL.
  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL.

    CHARING CROSS AND STRAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
    CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
    Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL
    PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons agreed to.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
    LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
GLASGOW BUILDING REGULATIONS BILL [H.L.]
  MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]

    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.]
    ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL [H. L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Stanmore and the Lord Glanesk be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Wolverton and the Lord Aberdare; read, and agreed to.
    PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 26th day of Juno next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
    EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASS) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    PERTH AND PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order). Bills reported without amendment. Standing Committee negatived and Bills to be read 3 to-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA, No. G (1900).
  Preliminary Report by Her Majesty's Special Commissioner on the Protectorate of Uganda.
COMMERCIAL, No. 3 (1900).
Reports from Her Majesty's Representatives in Europe on the metric system. Part I.

TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
No. 2485. Franco (French Indo-China);
No. 2486. Roumania;
No. 2487. China (Tientsin).

NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
Report of the Director of the National Gallery of Ireland to the Board of Governors and Guardians, for the year 1899.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Statistics of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1899.

HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Reports on the manuscripts of—

1. Mrs. Frankland-Russell-Astley, of Chequers Court, Bucks.

2. Lord Montagu, of Beaulieu, Hants.

3. Beverley Corporation.

Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY" OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Order of the Day for the Third Heading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Lord Heneage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)said he felt it his duty to give their Lordships an opportunity of protesting against this Bill. He had endeavoured to frame Amendments which would render this a more reasonable Bill, but had come to the conclusion that there were great objections to any form of amendment. The whole purpose and object of the Bill was vicious. It had been recommended to their Lordships' consideration on the ground that what were called the parties were agreed. That seemed to him a very serious thing, because "the parties" were the shipowners on the one side and the dock and harbour owners on the other. This was a circumstance which ought to put them on their guard against the Bill rather than tell in its favour, because they had these two very powerful bodies combining against the public who owned goods and had their lives and limbs to care for. Moreover, the Bill had not been brought before a single one of those bodies who were supposed to look after the commercial interests of the country. If the Bill were passed and Parliament were thus to affirm
1270
the principle of limitation of liability, it would form an irresistible argument in favour of similar legislation for every railway company in the United Kingdom, who at present were liable to the very last farthing they possessed. Clause 3 of the Bill provided that—
"The limitation of liability under this Act shall relate to the whole of any losses and damages which may arise upon any one distinct occasion, although such losses and damages may be sustained by more than one person, and shall apply whether the liability arises at common law or under any general or private Act of Parliament, and notwithstanding anything contained in such Act."
The measure of liability proposed in the Bill was absurd and grotesque. He really did not know what relation the size of the largest ship which had used the dock or harbour within five years previous to the accident had to the liability of the dock or canal owners. He objected to the mode by which the Bill came to be in its present form. The shipowners wanted additional limits, whereupon the dock-owners said, "We shall oppose you unless we get something too." The Bill was supposed to have received the patronage of the Government in the other House. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General had voted against it, and the President of the Board of Trade, with whom he (the Lord Chancellor) had thought it right to communicate, had informed him that he repudiated any responsibility for the measure, but that as he understood both parties were agreed he would not interfere. That was the extent to which his right hon. friend's support went. He begged to move that the Bill be read this day three months.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out 'now' and insert at the end of the motion, 'this day three months.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL EGERTONpointed out that the two great commercial cities of Liverpool and Manchester agreed in supporting the Bill. Under the Bill as it stood, the liability of Liverpool would be £136,000, whereas by the first suggested Amendment of the Lord Chancellor it would be only £50,000, and by the second Amendment it would be £530,000.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I have not moved those Amendments.
EARL EGERTON: No; but I am showing how difficult it is to frame any

1271
standard other than that in the Bill. In the case of Manchester the limit of the Bill was £104,000, which was reduced to £23,000 by the Lord Chancellor's first Amendment, an utterly in-adequate amount; whilst by the second Amendment it would be £.230,000, which was far too much. The Bill had been very fully considered by all the parties interested, and it was agreed that no difficulty whatever would be experienced in ascertaining the tonnage of the largest vessel using the port. He trusted that the Bill, which had received the unanimous support of the commercial community, would not be rejected in consequence of any precedent which the measure might form. The shipping interest was entirely different from the railway interest, and he hoped that their Lordships would agree to pass the Bill, which was the outcome of long negotiations between the parties interested.
LORD HENEAGEsaid he thought their Lordships would admit that the course taken by the noble and learned Lord was extremely inconvenient. The noble and learned Lord first put down an Amendment to Clause 2 proposing as the limit of the liability of the dock or canal or harbour authority 10 per centum of the value of the dock or canal or harbour. He had endeavoured to find out what would be the effect of that Amendment, and, having gone through an immense amount of figures, he had come to the conclusion that it was utterly absurd, ridiculous, and impracticable. The noble and learned Lord changed his mind and put down another Amendment proposing that the liability was not to exceed the value of the dock or canal or harbour. That, if not more absurd than the first, was more complicated and more impracticable. But instead of moving that Amendment, for which the House had come prepared, the noble and learned Lord moved the rejection of the Bill. However, that did not matter, for if the noble and learned Lord had moved his Amendment and had carried it the Bill could not have been accepted by its promoters. The noble and learned Lord dealt with life and property at sea; this Bill had nothing to do with that subject. It was with difficulty that he was able to hear the observations of the noble and learned Lord, but he under-
1272
stood him to say that he (Lord Heneage) had acknowledged that the bodies representing the commercial interests of the country had not been consulted in regard to this Bill. He acknowledged nothing of the kind. In reply to Lord Avebury, who asked, at a previous stage of the Bill, if those interested in cargoes had been consulted, he (Lord Heneage) stated that he could not recollect from memory whether chambers of commerce had been consulted, but that he was perfectly certain that underwriters had been, and that they approved of the Bill. Lord Avebury himself consulted the underwriters, and said he had no Amendment to move. The second clause was not so illogical as it looked, and there would not be the slightest difficulty in obtaining information with respect to the tonnage of the largest ship that had entered the dock, canal, or harbour. He would not ask their Lordships to take his word only for this, but would quote the opinion of one of the leading lawyers in the Admiralty Court. Mr. Butler Aspinall had expressed the following opinion—
"I am of opinion that the proposed basis of dock-owners' liability, namely, £8 per ton on the largest registered ship, is practicable and can be given effect to by the Admiralty Court without difficulty or undue expense. Dock-owners who propose limiting their liability will institute an action in the Admiralty Division for that purpose. Upon the action coming on for trial, the plaintiff will have to satisfy the judge by evidence that Ins alleged limit is based upon the tonnage of the largest ship. This can be done in accordance with the practice of the court by affidavit and the production of the ship's register. If the defendants deny that the ship in question is the largest ship, this issue of fact can be shortly and cheaply determined, In the large majority of cases there would be no dispute m to which was the largest ship. The basis of the largest ship seems fanciful, but in truth there is net principle in determining the quantum of a wrongdoer's liability, once it is granted that he is to be allowed to limit his liability. The proposed basis is capable of being easily worked, and this to my mind is its great merit.
"I think that the Lord Chancellor's proposal would lead in many cases to great delay and. heavy expenditure. in many cases there would necessarily be an expensive inquiry into what the rateable value was. The Admiralty Court, has no machinery for this purpose and no officials with the necessary special knowledge to enable them to hold such inquiries. It would mean that both parties would be entitled to be heard before the tribunal holding the inquiry, presumably with a right of appeal, which most conceivably might result in the matter not being disposed of till it had reached the House of Lords for adjudication."

1273
The Lord Chancellor said something with reference to the patronage of the Board of Trade. He (Lord Heneage) had spent the greater part of his life in the House of Commons, and had always understood, when a Bill went through that House unanimously supported by every Cabinet Minister and by the Law Officers of the Crown, that the Department had made itself responsible for the Bill, because, if it was a bad Bill, they ought to have opposed it. Even in the House of Lords Lord Balfour of Burleigh stated distinctly that the Board of Trade was in favour of the Bill, and voted against the Amendment of Lord Alverstone which was moved in Committee. The Board of Trade had loyally stood by the Bill, and was at this moment of opinion that the solution in the Bill was the only possible solution of the difficulty. He trusted their Lordships would not reject the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid it was a scandalous thing that the spokesmen of the Government on this question should take up such varying attitudes. Notwithstanding this division of opinion, the Department really responsible had given its opinion in favour of the Bill. It seemed to him that when it was a matter of choosing between the opinion of the Board of Trade-the responsible Department—and that of any member of the Government, the best course to take was to follow the advice of the responsible
Minister. The noble and learned Lord said they must be very careful in passing the Bill, because the two interests most concerned had come to an agreement. Surely one of the first considerations in matters of this kind was whether those in the country who were specially affected by the proposed law were in favour of it.
LORD ALVERSTONEasked their Lordships to consider whether the Bill was one which ought to pass, and not to put the responsibility upon any supposed agreement between shipowners and dock-owners, who were really making a bargain in their own interests without considering the interests of the persons who were really concerned. Not a single argument had been brought forward in their Lordships' House to justify the extended limitation of the liability of dock companies, except a bargain which they had concluded with the shipowners. If this absolutely new departure in the law of England wore to be made, he hoped the Government would be held responsible for the alteration. He did not hesitate to say that, if it were argued on its merits, their Lordships' impartial judgment would lead them to reject this Bill.
On Question whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Northumberland, D.

Harlech, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Heneage, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kelvin, L.

Carrington, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Chesterfield, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lindley, L.

Dartrey, E.

Macnaughten, L. [Teller.]

Egerton, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Massy, L.

Grey, E.

Cloncurry, L.

O'Brien, L.

Kimberley, E.

Colchester, L.

Rathmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Mayo, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Robertson, L.

Northbrook, E.

Cranworth, L.

Sherborne, L.

Spencer, E.

De Mauley, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry).

De Ramsey, L.

Templemore, L.

Yarborough, E.

Dormer, L.

Ventry, L.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Windsor, L.

Falkland, V.

Glenesk, L.

Powerscourt, V.

Greville, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Hardwicke, E.

Brampton, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Morley, E.

Braye, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Waldegrave, E.

Davey, L.

Harris, L.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

James, L [Teller.]

Portman, V.

Norton, L.

Carnwath, E.

Templetown, V.

Sinclair, L.

Cowper, E.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E.Galloway.)

Denbigh, E.

Alverstone, L. [Teller.]

Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

COUNTY AND BOROUGH FRANCHISE ASSIMILATION (LONDON) HILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD CLONCURRYsaid the Amendment standing in his name did not touch any question of ecclesiastical tithes or commuted tithes; it dealt only with a limited number of lay tithes. He had no personal interest in the matter, but was confident that there would be cases of gross injustice under the Bill if the Amendment standing in his name were not inserted.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 3, page 3, line 5, after Sub-section (3) to insert Sub-section (4):—' (4) Where a tithe rent-charge has been varied by any order of a court of quarter sessions made after the passing of the Irish Church Act, 1869, the amount at which it stood before the making of the order shall, for the purposes of this clause, be taken and deemed to be the amount at which it stood on the twenty-second day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four.' "—(Lord Cloncurry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): As I understand, the Amendment has nothing whatever to say to the great numbers that are represented by ecclesiastical tithe-payers, but is confined to a very small number of lay tithe-payers. My noble friend takes exception to the principle of the Bill, which is that there shall be a revision, not, as in the old times, once possibly every seven years, but once every fifteen years. My noble friend seems to think that because there may have been some lay tithe-payers who got a revision in 1872, therefore it would be unfair to subject the owners to another revision even after a lapse of sixteen years. But where is this picking and choosing of dates to stop? I do not think my noble friend has made out his case.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ARRANmoved the omission of Clause 8, which ran as follows:—
"(1) Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any annual sum charged upon land where the estate or interest therein of the person, liable to pay such annual sum has, after the creation of such charge and before the thirteenth day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, been conveyed to a purchaser on a sale.
"(2) Sections 3 and 4 of this Act shall not apply to any tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission out of hereditaments where the estate or interest therein of the person liable to pay such tithe rent-charge has, after the tenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two and before the twelfth day of May one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, been conveyed to a purchaser on a sale.
"(3) Where the estate or interest conveyed was less than the first estate of inheritance this section shall not apply after the determination of such less estate or interest.
"(4) For the purpose of showing that this section does not apply a statutory declaration or such other evidence as the Land Commission may require shall be prima facie evidence.
"(5) The expression 'sale' in this section does not include a mortgage or a marriage or other family settlement or arrangement."
The noble Lord argued that this exclusion spoiled a tardy act of justice, and that the Government could not be enthusiastic in its favour as it did not form part of their original proposal. The clause was designed to exclude from the benefits of the Bill, so far as ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, both commuted and non-commuted, was concerned, certain persons who purchased estates charged therewith subsequent to 1869 and 1872, on the ground that these purchasers had notice when they purchased that commuted tithe rent-charge had been made payable by statute for fifty-two years, or that the non-commuted rent-charge had been deprived of its variable character by the Act of 1872. Admitting that much, it must also be admitted on the other side that most of these purchasers bought at the highest prices of the century; that they purchased titles, which Parliament had guaranteed to be indefeasible with the object of tempting purchasers to come forward; that they purchased inter alia the right to fix the rents to be paid from time to time by their tenants, and that they not only had no notice that Parliament might some day pass the land legislation of 1881, but that so recently as in the debates on the Land Bill of 1870 and on Mr. Butt's Land Bill of 1876, Mr. Gladstone and all

1277
parties in the House of Commons except the Irish Home Rulers declared that such doctrines as fair rents, free sale, and fixity of tenure could not be listened to, and would amount to confiscation which would have to be paid for. Moreover, many tenant purchaser's under the Purchase Acts bought subject to the payment of the ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, and in such cases it would be unpopular as well as unjust to exclude them from the benefits of the Bill. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would see the justice of withdrawing the clause and restoring the Bill to its original form.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 8."—(The Earl of Arran.)
THE EARL OF MAYOsupported the proposal to omit Clause 8, failing to see the object of it. The second sub-section contained the sting. It simply meant that people who purchased an estate between 1872 and 1899 were to be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. They all knew that that was introduced at the instigation of a Nationalist Member, but he thought Nationalist Members in the House of Commons quite forgot that a very great number of tenants who had purchased would be hit by it. It seemed hard that landlords, and tenants who purchased between those dates, should not benefit in any way from this Bill. The clause was a niggardly clause, intended, it had been said, to strike at a certain gentleman who has purchased a large plot in Ireland, and the Bill would not be affected in any way if it were cut out.
LORD ASHBOURNE: The position in reference to this clause is one which I think I can state in a very few sentences to your Lordships. My noble friend who introduced the Amendment asked your Lordships not to spoil a tardy act of
justice, and the noble Earl who has just sat down improved upon that by describing it as a niggardly little clause that might easily be left out. The Earl of Arran said this was a clause with regard to which the Government were not called upon to be specially enthusiastic. The Government are never enthusiastic. Their mission is to be just and fair, and to endeavour to present their views in clear and intelligible language. Two particular grievances are sought to be remedied, and are referred to in the section. The first is to reduce the period of payment from fifty-two to forty-five years, and the second is the question of a remedy for the hardships and inconveniences resulting from the abolition of the principle of revision in respect of ecclesiastical tithe. The clause is the outcome of discussion in the House of Commons, where it was urged that the two classes of tithe-payers referred to in the clause did not suffer under the grievance the Bill was intended to redress, inasmuch as the circumstances were fully known and taken into account when the purchases were made. It was pointed out that people who had bought with their eyes open to the fact that there could be no variation of the tithe could not be in the same position as the old owners of property. The Government admitted the force of the argument that these payers had not the same claim for variation and revision, and I hope the House will not yield to the appeal of the noble Earl, but will accept the clause.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Does the noble Lord press his Amendment?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Yes.
On Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Denbigh, E.

Falkland, V.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Feversham, E.

Portman, V.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hardwicke, E.

Kimberley, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Bath, M.

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Northbrook, E.

Addington, L.

Powis, E.

Alverstone, L.

Carnwath, E.

Selborne, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Spencer, E.

Balfour, L.

Clarendon, E.

Yarborough, E.

Brampton, L.

Cowper, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Calthorpe, L.

James, L.

Rowton, L.

Colchester, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Sinclair, L.

Cranworth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)[Teller.]

De Ramsey, L.

Lindley, E.

Glenesk, L.

Norton, L.

Windsor, L.

Harris, L.

Robertson, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Macnaghten, L.

Northumberland, D.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Massy, L.

O'Brien, L.

Dartrey, E.

Clonbrock, L.

O'Neill, L.

Egerton, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Rathmore, L.

Lucan, E.

Dormer, L.

Sherborne, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Frankfort de Montmorency, V.

Greville, L.

Templetown, V.

Hare, L.[E. Listowel.)

Templemore, L.

Harlech, L.

Ventry, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork & Orrery.)

Heneage, L.

On Question, That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill, agreed to.

LORD CLONBROCKmoved the omission of Clause 9, which was as follows:—
"Sub-section 1 of Section 37 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896 (which dispenses with the consent of the Treasury to the redemption of tithe rent-charge as therein mentioned), shall not have effect in the case of any tithe rent-charge to which Section 3 of this Act applies."
He had stated on the second reading that he did not propose to move any Amendment, but that referred to the Bill as it then way. He did not know that his noble and learned friend would move the introduction of this new clause. The effect of his Amendment would, he said, be to restore the Bill as it left the House of Commons, and to fix once more the former price at which tithe rent-charge could be redeemed. by the Act of 1869 the price was fixed at 22½ years purchase. This was decidedly exorbitant, for it was well known that before the Church Act the value of tithe rent-charge was only about seventeen years purchase at the outside. The Church Fund benefited by this increase to the extent of something like half-a-million sterling, and the tithe rent-charge payers who redeemed had to do so at this high rate. In 1896 it seemed to have dawned on the Government that the amount fixed was excessive, and a change was made to twenty years, not out of tenderness to the landlords, but simply because they found that the high price at which a landlord had to redeem his tithe rent-charge disinclined him to sell to the tenant, and that the system of purchase in which the Government were so much interested was thereby impeded. This was clearly stated on the introduction of the Land Bill of 1896 by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. In
1280
introducing the Land Bill of 1896 Mr. Gerald Balfour said*—
"How are you to quicken the pace [of the Land Purchase Acts]? First of all we must try in every way we can to oil the machinery. We must study the various impediments in the existing system which make tenants slow to buy and the landlords slow to sell. We must, if possible, remove those impediments, and try to make purchase more attractive to the tenants, and sale more attractive to the landlords. We have in this Bill made various proposals with a view to effecting this object."
Mr. Gerald Balfour then proceeded to describe these proposals, and, on coming to the subject of tithe rent-charge, said-
"Another concession which we propose to make to landlords selling to their tenants has reference to the redemption of tithe rent-charge in case of sale. Under the Act of 1887 the Land Commission were empowered to allow the landlords to redeem the tithe rent-charge in case of sale at less than the statutory period of 22½ years provided the Treasury gave their consent. The Land Commission have, as a matter of fact, repeatedly applied to the Treasury to give their consent, and the Treasury have always refused it. Under this Bill the Land Commission are to be empowered to allow the landlords to redeem the tithe rent-charge at anything over twenty years purchase without asking the consent of the Treasury."
It was this provision in the Land Act of 1896 which would be repealed by this clause. He commended these arguments to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. A landlord could only sell to his tenants at a considerable loss of income; in fact, he usually only did so from a feeling of despair at the unjust manner in which he had been treated, and in the hope that he thus might save some-
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xxxix., page 809.

1281
thing out of the fire. The change would therefore add to his previous disinclination to sell Instead of trying in every way to "oil the machinery," the Government were, by restoring the twenty-two and a half years, doing the very thing which would impede the better and freer operation of the purchase system. They were taking away with one hand part of what was given with the other. The fund had gained half a million of money by this extravagant charge for a great number of years, and any loss which would be sustained must be by driblets. Moreover, it could not be absolutely certain that there would be a loss, for in the Treasury Minute of 14th July of last year it was stated that—
"Neither the future annual extent of the operations under those Acts (the Purchase Acts) nor the proportion in which such operations will apply to lands subject to tithe can be predicted With any confidence."
It further stated that the Treasury contemplated that there might be a loss, only at some future period. If this fund had been charged by successive Governments with more than it could bear, it was hard that the tithe-payer should in consequence suffer by having a larger sum extracted from him. If the Treasury thought this clause so important, why was it not introduced before instead of being slipped in at the last moment? He hoped the Government would consent to his Amendment and restore the Bill to what it was when it loft the House of Commons.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 9."—(Lord Cloubrock.)
THE EARL OF ERNEthought they had some reason to complain of the course which had been taken in regard to this clause. The clause was forced upon the Irish Government by the Treasury and would not have been introduced otherwise. There were plenty of opportunities in the House of Commons for the clause to have been inserted, but this was not done. Many noble Lords had left London on the understanding that no alteration would be made in the structure of the Bill and that only drafting Amendments would be agreed to. As his noble friend had told the House, this clause practically confiscated two and a half years purchase of tithe rent-charge when they came to sell, and in that way took away one of the important concessions which were made
1282
to Irish landlords in 1896. Noble Lords from Ireland were placed in rather a difficult position in regard to this matter. He fully conceded that the Government had met them fairly, having pressed this Bill, which would give some relief, through the House of Commons at the expense of other Bills on the whole. He would suggest that his noble friend should be content with his protest and not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid this was an instance of rather sharp practice on the part of the Treasury. Why, he asked, should the Treasury suddenly slip in, in the passage of the Bill from one House to the other, a little piece of legislation which really cut off some of the benefits of the Bill? The tithe rent-charge was expected to be reduced 20 per cent. under the Bill, and £100 paid now would therefore become £80. Twenty years purchase of £80 would be £1,600, but twenty-two and a half years purchase would be £1,800; therefore the purchase money was increased by £200. It had not been possible to debate the matter in Committee because the Lord Chancellor of Ireland suggested that owing to the lateness of the hour the Amendments should be postponed till the present stage. This increase of two and a half years would not affect the Church Fund for a great number of years, and Mr. Balfour said in the House of Commons that it would not be in the least necessary to go into the question of the solvency of the Church Fund thirty years hence. What could be the object, therefore, of the Treasury adding on this two and a half years What he objected to was that the clause had been put in after the Bill left the House of Commons. The Government had, so to speak, through the Treasury, gone back upon the arrangement that there should be no Amendments in the House of Lords. What an outcry there would have been if anything of the same kind had been done in a matter affecting the tenants.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I am very sorry that any noble Lord in this House should for a moment think that there has been anything in the slightest degree unfair or savouring of sharpness or unworthy practice in connection with this Bill. There has really been no change of view on this matter. The Chief Secretary

1283
expressed his views clearly in the other House in reply to an Amendment proposed by Mr. Dillon suggesting that there should be no redemption of ecclesiastical tithe save at twenty-five years purchase. The right hon. Gentleman then said he thought it would be reasonable that the price should not be less than twenty-two and a half years purchase. When I was moving the Second Reading of the Bill I referred to the way in which that matter would be dealt with. What is the history of this question? In the Church Act of 1869, Mr. Gladstone's measure as to the price of redemption was twenty-two and a half years purchase, and that has been the governing figure. When in 1887 a modification was suggested, it was subject to the assent of the Treasury, which was the arbiter. At that period the position of tithe rent-charge payers appealed to the sympathy of the Government. It was felt that the abolition of the power of revision by the Act of 1872 worked harshly. Prices had fallen, the English tithe rent-payer had been relieved to some extent, and therefore in 1896 it was deemed that the position of the Irish tithe rent-payer needed some further measure of consideration, and for the first time the Land Commission was given power at its discretion to say that redemption might take place at twenty years purchase. Under this Bill the power of revision is restored in a largo and substantial way. The Treasury considered that the large reduction of the tithe-payers' payments under this Bill was a great and substantial benefit, and under those circumstances it was right to restore to the Treasury the power of saying whether twenty-two and a half years purchase was not the right figure. Whether you concur or not with the views of the Government or the Treasury, you will see that their action has been uniform and consistent all through, and that ample notice was given in the House of Commons.
Bill to be road 3a To-morrow.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1800) AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
Amendments agreed to.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The promoters of this Bill gave a pledge in the memorandum to the Bill that it should not affect any legitimate sport, such as hunting or coursing, and I was under the impression when I read the Bill that it carried out their intention. I consulted two of my learned colleagues in this House and they agreed with me; but the question was raised in the Standing Committee, and my attention was called to the fact that the Law Officers of the Crown were of opinion that it might be contended that stag hunting or rabbit coursing was included. The object of my Amendment is to remove any doubt on. the subject.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 4, line 26, after '1876' to insert 'nor to the hunting or coursing of any animal which has not been liberated in a mutilated or injured state in order to facilitate its capture or destruction.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
THE EARL OF CORK: I am glad that my noble and learned friend has moved to insert these words, because there are very grave doubts whether the Bill in its-present form would not put an end to rabbit coursing, a sport of which I am not enamoured, but one which affords much pleasure to many individuals. I am certain those who pursue this sport will thank the noble and learned Lord for his Amendment, and will do everything they possibly can to prevent in future any cruelty being done to these animals.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"To insert as a new clause, 'This Act shall not extend to Scotland.' "—(Lord James of Hereford.)
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) (SALARIES, ETC.) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL [H.L.]
Amendment made; Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

OIL IN TOBACCO BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which, though a small one, is one of considerable importance. Your Lordships will remember that under the Finance Acts manufacturers of tobacco are not allowed to use more than a certain amount of water. If the law is not complied with in this respect heavy penalties are imposed, but manufacturers of tobacco have evaded the law by using oil in addition to water. This is now done to an extent which makes it injurious to the consumer. It also seriously affects the revenue, and works hardly on the honest trader. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced this Bill to stop this practice, which works mischief all the way round. The object of the Bill is to limit the amount of oil used in tobacco, the quantity of oil permitted by the measure as it stands being 3 per cent., but the Government are willing to extend it to 4 per cent. when the Bill gets into Committee.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."— (Viscount Cross.)
On Question agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

MILITIA REORGANISATION.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the general scheme for the reorganisation of the Army which, it is understood, is under consideration, the Government are prepared to pay special attention to the question of the Militia in general, and to the position of the Militia in time of war; whether the matter of Militia battalions volunteering for foreign and for active service will engage their attention, with a view to place the present
1286
uncertain, undefined, and unsatisfactory system on a proper basis; whether, in cases where a large portion of the battalion do volunteer and the minority do not, distinct regulations will be enacted, to govern the acceptance or the rejection by the authorities of the offer; whether the present irregular system will be abolished—that is to say, the system (if it can be so called) whereby the volunteering is made to depend on the success of the persuasive powers of commanding officers, company officers, and non-commissioned officers, and whereby those (many or few) of the men who adhere to their engagement to serve only in the United Kingdom, except their consent is obtained to serve abroad, are placed at a disadvantage in the eyes of their fellow-soldiers; whether clear rules can be officially laid down as to the liability, in future, of the whole Militia to serve without volunteering; or whether, if that is not practicable, certain battalions can be raised and privileged to so serve; or, again, if that is impracticable, whether individual volunteers from Militia battalions will be accepted and transferred to the Regular Army, and incorporated therein; or, if that cannot be, whether any regulation will be framed which, in the opinion of the Government, can meet the desired end. I. also wish to ask how many battalions of Militia have volunteered during the present war; how many of these have had their offers accepted, and how" many rejected; whether any rule governs such acceptance and rejection; whether any battalions are ever asked by the authorities if they will serve or not, or whether the initiative has come, and is expected to come, from the battalions themselves; how many of the battalions who may have volunteered have done so unanimously; how many (if any) partially and conditionally; and how many (if any) have refused to volunteer; whether it is in contemplation to raise the Militia to a, position approximating to the Regular Army, with adequate years of training, and with adequate pensions and foreign service, or to limit its service wholly to. the United Kingdom, or to make any fundamental change in the organisation, of the Militia.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The noble and gallant Lord has adopted

1287
a procedure which is not without its advantage with the temperature at the present point. He has asked his questions in the briefest possible terms, and placed his arguments at some length on the Notice Paper. His questions relate to two matters. He desires, in the first place, to be made aware of our intentions with regard to various questions of importance affecting the Militia force, and he also asks for information as to certain matters of fact connected with the circumstances under which certain Militia battalions have lately been allowed to volunteer for service abroad. It may, perhaps, have escaped the attention of the noble Lord that, on the occasion of a recent debate on the subject of the Militia Ballot, I stated at length that there were certain changes which the Government intended to make at once in the Militia, but that with regard to the reorganisation of the force and the alteration of its conditions of service, we proposed to take no final step until we had been able to consider other questions of Army reorganisation, which, as I tried to show your Lordships, are very intimately connected with the question of the reorganisation of the Militia. I told the House that I, for my part, was much attracted by the idea of rendering the whole of the Militia force liable in time of war for service beyond the United Kingdom. I recognised that that, of course, involved the reconsideration of the question of the Militia bounty and the general conditions under which the force was recruited, and that it would also mean the disappearance of the present system under which Militia battalions are allowed to volunteer for service abroad. If a change was made affecting the whole Militia force there would no longer be any occasion to resort to volunteering. It would disappear with all the inconveniences which are called attention to in the questions of the noble Lord. That being the case, I confess I do not think there is very much advantage in discussing hypothetically the regulations which might or might not be enacted for the purpose of governing the acceptance or the rejection by the authorities of the offer of Militia battalions to serve abroad; nor, of course, is it possible for me to give the noble Lord any information as to the rules which might hereafter be laid down as to the liability of the force to serve with or without volunteer-
1288
ing. Still less is it possible for me to give the noble and gallant Lord any definite assurance of the kind which he seems to expect when he asks his last question as to the fundamental changes in the organisation of the Militia which we may hereafter find it desirable to introduce. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press me further on this point, but will be content with the assurance which I gave the House the other evening, and which, I think, satisfied those of your Lordships who were good enough to listen to me on that occasion. Then the noble Lord asks me some specific questions with regard to the circumstances under which certain Militia battalions lately volunteered for service outside the United Kingdom. The facts are these. Thirty battalions have gone to South Africa, four to the Mediterranean, and one to the island of St. Helena. Of those thirty five battalions, thirteen volunteered without any intimation from the War Office that it was intended to offer them the opportunity of serving abroad. The other twenty-two battalions volunteered in response to an intimation made to them that their services would be acceptable should they be disposed to offer them. But besides the thirteen battalions which volunteered spontaneously, forty other battalions also volunteered without any invitation from the military authorities. The noble Lord asks whether there is any rule which governs the acceptance or rejection of these offers from Militia battalions. There is no fixed rule. The decision rests with the Commander-in-Chief, who is, I believe, influenced by the strength of the battalion, the age of the men of whom it is composed, and by its general reputation for efficiency. Another question the noble Lord asked me was, "How many of the battalions who have volunteered have done so unanimously?" I find that in every battalion there were a certain number of individual Militiamen who declined to serve abroad. There wore five battalions which were offered the chance of so serving and which refused altogether, or, in other words, in those battalions the number of men who offered themselves was not sufficient to justify the acceptance of their services. I think those are the whole of the questions as to matters of fact which the noble Lord has asked me.

1289
I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that I am very far from disagreeing with the noble Lord in the view which I collect from his questions—namely, that there is a certain inconvenience in the system under which at present offers are accepted from Militia battalions. I have indicated to your Lordships that personally I should be very glad to sec a change made in the constitution of the force which would enable us to got rid altogether both of the Militia Reserve, which is so unpopular with Militia officers, and also of the present system of volunteering. I do not think, so far as I am able to learn, that any undue pressure has been put upon the men, but I certainly think there is an objection to a system which lends itself to the suspicion that pressure of that kind may be applied.
LORD BRAYE: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for having put the matter so clearly before the House, and to express my pleasure that the Government have seriously in view the whole question of the Militia force.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—THE COLONIAL TROOPS AND WAR MEDALS.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any truth in a rumour which has been widely circulated that a separate war medal or war decoration will be issued to Her Majesty's Colonial troops, or whether the Colonial troops will receive the war medal issued to British troops, and a fair proportion of all honours, distinctions, and rewards which will be granted to Her Majesty's troops raised in Great Britain and Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is no truth in the rumour that a separate war medal or decoration is likely to be bestowed upon Her Majesty's Colonial troops. The Colonial forces will receive the South African Medal, which will be bestowed upon the whole of the troops, British and Colonial, and it will be a medal of the shape and form usual in such cases. With regard to the other part of the question, I think the noble Lord may rest assured that a fair proportion of all honours, distinctions, and awards which may be granted to Her Majesty's forces will fall to the share of the Colonial troops, who have behaved
1290
with so much credit to themselves during the present campaign. I cannot undertake to discuss what the proportion will be, but my noble friend need have no uneasiness on that subject.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am sure the answer of the noble Marquess will give great satisfaction not only in the Colonies but throughout the mother country. I would suggest that the more promptly the medals can be given after the conclusion of the war the better they will be appreciated. Medals have been given within the last three or four months for services rendered thirty and thirty-four years ago. It would naturally have been more satisfactory to all those who were entitled to receive these medals, many of whom have died in the meantime, if they had been given within a reasonable time. I have no doubt that it will be otherwise in the present case.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven of the clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.