Lords Sitting of 4 August 1905

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

1. Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, etc., Continuance.

2. Coal Mines (Weighing of Minerals).

3. Shipowners' Negligence (Remedies).

4. Compensation for Damage to Crops.

5. Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Liverpool, etc.)

6. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 1).

7. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London No. 2).

8. Millport Piers and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation.

9. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

10. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

11. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12).

12. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).

13. Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16).

14. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17).

15. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4).

16. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5).

17. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6).

18. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8).

19. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1).

20. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2).

21. Inverness Gas and Water Provisional Order.

22. Port Glasgow Improvement Provisional Order.

23. Gas Orders Confirmation.

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

25. Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3).

26. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).

218

27. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation.

28. Stonehaven Harbour Order Confirmation.

29. Esk Valley Power-Gas Order Confirmation.

30. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation.

31. Glasgow Corporation (Tramways Consolidation) Order Confirmation.

32. Glasgow University Order Confirmation.

33. Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation.

34. Hitchin and District Gas.

35. Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway.

36. Worcestershire County Council (Bridges).

37. Tees Valley Water Board.

38. Whitby Urban District Council.

39. Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies.

40. Western Valleys (Monmouth shire) Water and Gas.

41. Andover Lighting and Power.

42. Great Western Railway Additional Powers.

43. Southend and Colchester Light Railways.

44. Whitechapel and Bow Railway.

45. Great Northern Railway (Ireland).

46. London County Council(Money).

47. Hessle Gas.

48. Great Central Railway (Pension Fund).

49. Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District).

50. Workington Harbour and Dock.

51. South Lancashire Tramways.

52. Matlock Bath Improvement.

53. Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council.

54. Formby Township.

55. Sheffield University.

56. Midland Railway.

57. Bootle Corporation.

58. London Gas.

59. Caledonian Railway.

60. North British Railway (General Powers).

61. Rhondda Urban District Council.

62. Rotherham, Maltby, and Laugh-ton Railway.

63. Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power.

219

64. Woolwich Borough Council.

65. Skegness Water.

66. Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 1).

67. Metropolitan Electric Tramways.

68. Dublin United Tramways.

69. London and North-Western Railway.

70. Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway.

71. Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

72. Edgware and Hampstead Railway.

73. Gosport and Fareham Tramways.

74. Bristol Blind Asylum.

75. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.

76. Blackpool Improvement.

77. County of London Electric Supply Company.

78. Nottingham Corporation.

79. North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.

80. Liverpool Corporation.

81. Great Central Railway.

82. Humber Conservancy.

83. Littlehampton Urban District Council.

84. Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting).

85. Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board.

86. Ealing Corporation.

87. Malvern Water.

88. Central Electric Supply.

89. Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company.

90. Sandgate Urban District Council.

91. Corbett Estate.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Preston
220
Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H L.]; Common Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Wigan Corporation 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 Thursday the 27th of July discharged, and Bill committed for Monday next.
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Thames Conservancy Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Heckmondwike Improvement Bill. Read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendment considered (according to order), and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Stations and units in which cases of epizootic lymphangitis have occurred in the United Kingdom.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Forty-ninth Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners; with Appendix.
  PUBLIC WORKS, IRELAND.
  Seventy-third Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, for the year ended March 31st, 1905.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the year ended March, 1905.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1904.
  Appendix, Section 1, to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1904.

  SUPPLY OF FOOD AND RAW MATERIAL IN TIME OF WAR—(ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of the supply of food and raw material in time of war; with minutes of evidence and appendices (Vol. I. Report; Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence; Vol. III. Appendices).
  STATISTICS.
  Statistical abstract for the principal and other foreign countries in each year from 1893 to 1902–1903 (as far as particulars can be stated). Thirty-first Number.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3471. China (Ichang).
  No. 3472. United States (Savannah).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CLOSING ORDER, COLERAINE URBAN DISTRICT).
  Order made by the Urban District Council of Coleraine and confirmed by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

  PILOTAGE.
  Abstract of returns relating to pilots and pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 276, of 1904), as furnished by the various pilotage authorities.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT SCHEME (LONDON AND MIDDLESEX) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I desire to say a few words in opposition
  222
  to this Bill, which considerably affects the County Council of Middlesex. In 1899 a Bill was introduced entitled the Local Government Bill, and in that measure a provision was made for placing Hornsey and a portion of Middlesex within the jurisdiction of the London County Council. When the Bill was passing through this House I was very anxious that no portion of the area within the jurisdiction of the Middlesex County Council should be handed over to London without some compensation being given and in order to find out whether it was clear that such compensation could be paid under the Bill I asked the then President of the Council, my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, whether he was of opinion that compensation could be given in the case which I quoted without special words being inserted to that effect. The noble Duke's Answer was—
  "Yes, certainly. The Local Government Board are advised that there is full power to compensate any authority for loss of rateable value."
  An Answer to a similar effect was given in the House of Commons by the present Prime Minister. The Bill passed without any amendment in this House. There had already been two cases in which compensation had been granted to county authorities on this ground; but in 1904 a decision was given by your Lordships' House which altogether precluded the idea of compensation being given in such cases. This measure, I admit, has already been before a Committee of this House, who decided against the insertion of any compensatory clause for the county of Middlesex. In 1900 the legal transfer of the parish of Hornsey was made to the County Council of London, and they have exercised jurisdiction there since that date. Therefore, as the arrangement had been come to between the two parties prior to 1904 there can be no doubt that the Middlesex authority have a claim in justice to compensation; but now that this judgment has been given by your Lordships' House they are precluded from getting compensation under the scheme. The matter is a very serious one for the county of Middlesex, because they lose something like £2,000 a year in rates. I hope this House will bear in mind the promise which was given by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and will recognise that it is not unreasonable that the

  223
  Middlesex County Council should have the right of placing before the Commissioners any claim they may think they are entitled to make for compensation. I only ask that the County Council of Middlesex shall have the right to make that claim.
  EARL CARKINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl has correctly said that this is a very serious matter, and I think we have some right to express surprise at this opposition being sprung on us at this late stage of the Bill, when it is down for Third Reading. The circumstances of the parish of South Hornsey are such that the Middlesex County Council derived by means of the county rate from that parish prior to its transfer a considerably larger sum annually than was expended by them on the parish, and therefore they claim that the London County Council ought to pay them a further sum by way of compensation for the loss of the rateable value in question. The noble Earl is pre-eminently a fair-minded man, and I would ask him, if that is to be done, whether it ought not to go the other way as well, and, if there is a loss, that the County Council should be recouped. It does not follow that because one rating authority suffers financial loss by the transfer of a part of its rating area that the authority which takes it over secures any gain at all. The London County Council does a great deal more for the benefit of those who live under its jurisdiction than the Middlesex County Council. For instance, they provide bands, open spaces, and parks, and there are statutory obligations in addition in regard to drainage, fire brigades, and the administration of the building laws. I submit, therefore, that if they are called upon to pay compensation for the loss of rateable value, they will have to pay twice over. Moreover, it would be a distinct premium on starving a district. I submit that this is not a fair proposal, and I hope the House will, in the interests of the ratepayers of London, pass the Bill as it stands.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not often differ from the noble Earl who has just sat down, but on this occasion I differ entirely from him, and I will venture to put the case as it seems to me for the Middlesex County Council.
  224
  When the London Government Bill of 1899 was passing through Parliament the Middlesex County Council was very much exercised at the doubtful state of the law with regard to this particular question, and were very anxious to get introduced into the Bill safeguards which would ensure their receiving compensation for any loss that might be incurred in rateable value owing to a portion of their area being handed over to the county of London. There were two pieces dealt with. There was a small piece in Clerkenwell handed over to the county of Middlesex, and South Hornsey was handed over by Middlesex to the county of London. The Clerkenwell portion was so small that it is hardly worth talking about, but there can be no doubt that the county of Middlesex suffered considerable loss in rateable value in respect of the portion of South Hornsey which was handed over to the county of London. The idea then was that in all these cases compensation would be given by the gaining body to the losing body, and two special cases had been decided under the Act of 1888 by the Court of Appeal. When this Bill was in the other House of Parliament two of the Members for Middlesex did bring forward an Amendment to safeguard their position, but an appeal was made to them by the Leader of the House, the present Prime Minister, who assured the Middlesex Members that under the existing law, which would be embodied in the Act, Middlesex could be compensated for any loss it might sustain by reason of the transfer; and he added—
  "I understand it has been laid down by a learned Judge that it was the duty of the Local Government Board or the authority concerned to see that such redress was made."
  That was a considerable promise by the First Minister of the Crown in the House of Commons. The Bill in due time came to this House, and the noble Earl opposite, Lord Jersey, also proposed the insertion of a clause to safeguard the interests of Middlesex. On that occasion the Duke of Devonshire, the then Leader of your Lordships' House, said—
  "I am unable to accept this Amendment. The subject was discussed in the House of Commons and a conclusion was arrived at, to which I adhere, that this is a matter which must be dealt with by scheme."
  Lord Jersey then asked—
  "Is the noble Duke of opinion that compensation could be given in a case of this kind

  225
  without special words being inserted to that effect?"
  —and this was the Duke of Devonshire's reply—
  "Certainly. The Local Government Board are advised there is full power to compensate any neighbouring county for loss of rateable value. This power has been exercised and there are reported decisions."
  Upon this Lord Jersey withdrew his Amendment, and it seems to me that the present Prime Minister and the noble Duke who was then Lord President of the Council and Leader of this House, are really bound to see that justice is done to Middlesex in the terms of the pledges they then gave. The Bill was eventually passed, and the question of adjustment of values between the two counties was referred to the Commissioners. The inquiry was completed, and there had been negotiations between the two parties with a view to coming to a settlement; but then came the decision in the House of Lords in what is known as the Caterham case. The Assistant Commisioner said that in consequence of that decision the Middlesex County Council were out of Court, that they had no grounds whatever for their case, and he declined to go any further into it. In the first place, the Caterham case did not arise out of the Act of 1899 at all, but out of the Act of 1888, and if you compare the clauses in the latter Act with those in the Act of 1899 you will find they differ considerably, and it is by no means certain that the same Judges having to decide on a case arising out of the 1888 Act and a case arising out of the 1899 Act would come to the same decision.
  My point with regard to this Bill is this, that it was perfectly competent for the noble Marquess, in producing this scheme, to have introduced into it a clause that would have given some right of compensation to the county of Middlesex in fulfilment of the pledges of his colleagues. There are precedents for that. Bills hare been passed through both Houses quite recently containing similar provisions. Last year there was the Bristol Extension Act and the Portsmouth Provisional Order Confirmation Act, both containing clauses of a similar character to that asked for by Middlesex on this occasion, so that the noble Marquess would have had plenty of precedents for introducing such a clause in-
  226
  to the scheme comprised in this Bill. I think Middlesex has a double grievance. First, I think it suffers injustice in not receiving some compensation; and, secondly, I think Middlesex has a still greater grievance against the noble Marquess for not supporting his colleagues in fulfilling the pledges which they most solemnly gave to both Houses of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has stated the case very fully, but I should like to remark that the noble Earl beside him, Lord Carrington, rather confused the issue, because the arguments he used were addressed to the amount of compensation which should be given. That, of course, is a matter which must be left to a tribunal. The point which we urge is that some opportunity should be given to the Middlesex County Council to state their case for compensation, and that there should be a chance of recovering whatever compensation is thought to be just and right. I confess that, after the pledges given in both Houses of Parliament by responsible Ministers of the Crown, on the authority of the Government, I cannot see how the Government can possibly decline to grant the request of Middlesex in this matter. The noble Lord who has just sat down said that in other Bills before your Lordships' House—in the Portsmouth Bill and the Bristol Bill—a proviso such as we ask for was inserted, but I do not think he insisted on the fact that this action was taken after the Caterham judgment. If it was right, after the Caterham judgment, to put a clause into Bills to ensure compensation, surely it must be right to put the same clause into a Bill which deals with a scheme that was passed years before the Caterham judgment was given, and passed on the pledge of the Government that what the Caterham judgment has upset was the law of the land. The Middlesex County Council have a right to be placed in as good a position as they would have been in before that judgment.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, until the noble Duke rose I could not help thinking that the debate was taking the form of

  227
  the triangular duel of Mr. Midshipman Easy. Be that as it may, I hope that before I resume my seat I shall prove to your Lordships' satisfaction that the course which His Majesty's Government are taking in asking you to pass the Third Reading of this measure in its present form is really the only course which is open to them to pursue. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Carrington, seemed to assert that the measure had been sprung on your Lordships.
  EARI CARRINGTON: Not the measure. I was referring to Lord Jersey's opposition to the Bill.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If the opposition was sprung upon anybody it was sprung upon myself. This measure has gone through its various stages in your Lordships' House, and it was only the day before yesterday that I received notice from a private source that there was to be opposition to it. As my noble friend Lord Jersey has told you, under the Local Government Act of 1899, by means of an Order in Council, Hornsey was separated from the county of Middlesex and handed over to the county of London. Immediately after the transfer took place representatives of Hornsey and Middlesex met for the purpose of adjusting the many arrangements that necessarily arise under such a transfer, and included in those arrangements was the question of compensation. Those meetings of the representatives extended over three years. It has been hinted that if the Middlesex County Council had acted with rapidity it might have been possible for them to have obtained their compensation before the Caterham judgment was given. That is not the fault of the Government; it is the fault of the Middlesex County Council. For three years they sat round a table discussing this question, and they were continually reminded that time was getting on. The London Government Act Commissioners approached them, urging upon them the necessity of arriving at some conclusion, but they received an answer dated June 23rd, 1903, from the clerk to the council, stating that he hoped shortly to be able to send a draft agreement to the Commissioners. In reply to a further communication from the Commissioners, the clerk wrote a letter on October 22nd,
  228
  1903, the last sentence of which was as follows—
  "I am, therefore, to ask that the Commissioners will be good enough to allow the matter to remain in abeyance for a short while longer."
  I think that shows that if the County Council of Middlesex had been a little more brisk in their operations they might have received compensation. The Commissioners continually urged them to come to a conclusion on the subject. Matters between the parties were not adjusted in 1904. The London Government Act Commissioners considered it necessary, after this delay, to hold an inquiry themselves, and at this inquiry the question of compensation for the transfer of course came in. It was while the Commissioners were considering the whole question of which compensation was a part that the judgment which is known as the Cater-ham judgment was given by your Lordships' House. I should like to correct my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth on one point. He seemed to think that directly the Caterham decision was given the Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Thompson, heard no more evidence with regard to compensation. That is not absolutely correct. He went on with the case, and it was subsequently that he became convinced that the Caterham decision invalidated any further evidence on the question of compensation. I do not intend to go into the Caterham judgment from the legal point of view, but if this debate continues I have no doubt the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack will assist me by giving his version of that decision. The Caterham judgment overruled the Rochdale judgment, which in the Court of Appeal established the principle that compensation might be paid for rateable value. After the decision in the Caterham case the Commissioners were naturally unable to express any opinion with regard to the question of compensation.
  I now come to the pledges given by my predecessor the Duke of Devonshire, and by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, on which the Amendments that were moved on the part of Middlesex were withdrawn. At the time when these statements were made they were absolutely correct. The noble Duke and the Prime Minister were giving their opinion

  229
  on the law as it existed at that time under the Rochdale decision, and I maintain that in the circumstances they were absolutely justified in what they said. I cannot allow that they can be accused in any way of bad faith. Your Lordships will remember that a scheme was subsequently submitted to a Committee of the other House, and to a Committee of your Lordships' House. Opposition was raised to it owing to the omission of any provision for compensation, but in both cases the Committee overruled the objection, and maintained that after the Caterham judgment the question of compensation could not possibly be considered.
  It is important that this measure should be carried through without delay. There are other cases hanging on this Bill which will be influenced by the decision of your Lordships' House—Hackney and Edmonton, Hornsey Borough and London, Penge and London, Kent and London, Surrey and London, and Barnes and London. The hamlet of Penge, prior to the passing of the Act of 1899, formed part of the county of London, but was transferred for the convenience of administration to the county of Kent, and was made an urban district. It had at the time of its transference a rateable value of over £155,000, and contributed in proportion to that rateable value to the expenses of the county of London. It would be inequitable to make London pay compensation to Middlesex in respect of South Hornsey without making the county of Kent pay compensation to London for the loss of Penge. There are many other cases in which the same principle is involved. In consideration of the fact that other cases depend on the passing of this scheme, and in consideration also of the fact that the Commissioners will be very much hampered in proceedings now pending if your Lordships reject this measure, I must ask the.House to pass the Bill in its present form.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I think after what my noble friend has said your Lordships will be glad to hear something about what is called the Caterham case. There is some misapprehension on the subject. The only question decided by the House of Lords was that the language of a particular statute on which a claim for compensation was founded was
  230
  inadequate to give that compensation. Your Lordships held unanimously that the words "adjustment of income" did not include compensation. That was the sole judgment arrived at by your Lordships' House, and as it was arrived at in May, 1904, it is rather late in the day to be discussing the question on the Third Reading of this Bill when it is impossible to make an Amendment and your Lordships must either accept or reject the Bill. I protest against its being said that the House of Lords laid down the principle that compensation could not be given. No such principle was laid down. The question involved was the construction of particular words in a particular Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I only intervene for one moment in this discussion to point out to your Lordships what is the position with regard to this Bill. This Provisional Order has been before a Committee of the House of Commons, and it has also been before a Committee of your Lordships' House, and your Lordships' Committee, which was presided over by Lord Lauderdale, had not only to decide whether or not, in their opinion, the Caterham case applied, but they decided the case on its merits. The question whether in this particular matter the relief prayed for by the petitioners should be given was most carefully considered by the Committee. I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to go into the details of the case. Suffice it for me to say that, after having gone into the question on its merits, apart altogether from whether the Caterham case applied or not, the Committee decided that, in their opinion, this relief ought not to be granted.
  *THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, as I was Chairman of the Committee of your Lordships' House which considered this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to state the facts briefly. In the first instance, counsel argued at great length whether the Caterham case applied, and we decided unanimously that it did. Counsel then asked to be allowed to put the case before us on its merits. We consented, and the matter was fully gone into. We finally came to the conclusion that there was nothing special in this case to induce us to depart from the principle laid down in the Caterham case.

  231
  That is really the A B C of what took place, and I thought I ought to state it. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more, as the noble Marquess (Lord Londonderry) has explained the matter very kindly to your Lordships, and the noble Earl who spoke last has also placed the case clearly before the House. I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Bill being rejected.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I frankly admit the inconvenience of opposing the Bill at this stage, and I should not think of putting your Lordships to the trouble of dividing. I may say that no one questions for a moment the bona fides of the two Ministers who made the statement referred to in 1899; but I think what has happened must tend to diminish the value of statements made by Ministers in charge of Bills.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS,who was received with cheers in recognition of his having that day completed his 87th year, said: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for renewing the kindly greeting you gave to me on this day last year. It encourages one to fight on as long as I can for what I believe to be right. I think it will be for the convenience of the House that as my remarks on this Bill will be somewhat general in character I should make them before the noble and learned Earl leaves the Woolsack. My attitude in regard to this Bill is a thoroughly mundane one. My position as regards the Presbyterian Church in Scotland is precisely that which was so effectively and clearly stated by my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson the other day as regards himself. Your Lordships, I have no doubt, have received a circular which has been sent round
  232
  by the Free Church containing the Amendments I have put down. Those Amendments were drawn up by that body, and I have been requested to move them. Their object is to guard against the establishment of the principle of the State taking possession of property and dealing with it without the full sanction, of the owners previously given, and that they are not to be deprived of any property which they can show their capacity beneficially to use. These are the objects of the Amendments, which in no way interfere with the intended action of the Bill. The purport of the Amendments is to secure that the property dealt with in this Bill shall be distributed by the Commission in such a way as to leave to those who are now possessed of it all that they can reasonably require for the purposes for which they hold it.
  This property is as much the property of the Free Church as is the property of any of your Lordships his own. The title is absolute and indefeasible It is a title granted on appeal by the highest Court of the realm. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chanceller and the other noble and learned Lords who heard the appeal in this House sat for seventeen days and gave the matter the fullest consideration. It was said by the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of the Bill that there were only twenty-seven of these Free Church congregations. It matters not if they could only say "We are seven," but I am credibly informed that he greatly understated —of course unintentionally—the number, and that there are from 170 to 180 organised congregations. I quite admit that the state of things which has been produced in Scotland should be remedied. The Amendments I am going to move are intended to improve the Bill, and in no way to interfere with its progress. I will read to your Lordships a letter showing the state of excitement on this subject. It is dated from the United Free Church Offices, 1, Castle Terrace, Edinburgh, June 22nd, 1905, and signed by Dr. Rainy, and it proceeds—
  "It is necessary now to apply our utmost strength to procure the Amendments which the general mind of the Church, supported, I am glad to say, by the Press of the country, feels to be essential."
  How is this to be brought about? By two means. Heaven and earth are to be

  233
  moved in furtherance of these measures. The letter proceeds—
  "It is hoped that you will, with the help, where possible, of one or two intelligent and influential friends, apply to voters of weight in your constituency, asking them to write as soon as possible to their M.P."
  And then there is this postscript—
  "The foregoing relates to practical effort. May I suggest that the situation calls for earnest prayer."
  And who is the writer of this remarkable letter? No less a person than Dr Rainy. Thus the constituencies are to he moved, and prayers are to be offered up, and all for what? In order that property which has been given by law to one body may be taken away and given to another.
  But this Bill I admit to be a necessity of the situation, and I think His Majesty's Government deserve every credit for bringing it forward in the interest of peace and goodwill in Scotland. But the Bill involves a principle which I hold to be full of danger. It is another case of State interference with property. If your Lordships admit the principle that the State can step in and say, "Here is property absolutely belonging to one set of persons, but we think others ought to have it," and then distribute it amongst those others, where are you to stop? There may be some day a Government with a socialist Prime Minister and Home Secretary, and they may bring in a Bill to distribute private property. They may say to your Lordships, "You have more than is adequate for your wants." They may say to the popular and genial Leader of the Government in this House, the Marquess of Lansdowne, "You have Bowood, and you have Lansdowne House and other places. You cannot want them all. We will take some from you, but we will leave you enough to take a flat in Victoria Street or a top floor in Hankey's Mansions." That may be an exaggeration, but the principle in this Bill is one which may be applied to private property as well as to corporate property, and that is why I venture to ask your Lordships to be careful in dealing with this measure.
  It may be said that this is an exceptional Bill, but since 1870 we have had pretty good experience in exceptional
  234
  legislation. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne found out in Ireland what exceptional legislation meant and how it grew. This exceptional legislation, which began in Ireland, moving like an Irish bog, has already crossed the Irish Sea to Scotland, where it settled itself in the crofts of Mull, and now your Lordships have this exceptional legislation in every one of your estates both in England and Scotland through the Agricultural Holdings Act. Thus, when you break through sound principles, the evil thing catches. When I was a member of St. James's Vestry a motion was made, on the principle of the Irish Land Act of 1870, that there should be set up by the Government in London Courts for the purpose of fixing the rents of houses and business premises. That shows how this principle grows. Let me state what the present feeling of Socialist agitators in this country is with regard to property. I see the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice in his place. Lord Alverstone will recollect that three or four years ago he was chairman of a meeting at the Society of Arts, the object of which was to discuss and stop, if possible, the wild, ill-considered municipal trading of the present day. Mr. Burns, M.P., was there, and he attacked me for something I had said, and when he sat down I asked him this question, which, like an honest man, he answered with perfect candour. I asked—
  "Is it or is it not the case that you and those who agree with your policy mean this as the ultimate object to which you are striving, that all property of all kinds, in land, in manufactures, in ships, in everything, and all distribution of property should be in the hands of a labour-governed State."
  Mr. Burns simply stood up, bowed, and said "Yes." It is good to take stock of the situation, and in order to show how we stand I will remind your Lordships of a congress held a few days ago at which representatives of all kinds of societies attended. There were represented the International Congress, the National Reform Union, the Indian Home Rule Society, the new Reform Club, about a dozen trades unions, and about as many Liberal, Radical, and Progressive Associations in London. At that congress Mr. Pickersgill moved, and Mr. O'Donnell

  235
  seconded, the adoption of a programme including the following:—State payment of Members and election expenses; adult suffrage; one man one vote; State registration of voters; the establishment of a universal system of old-age pensions free from pauperism; the democratisation of the land laws—that is, if they were in power they would take advantage of this Bill and take your property; equalisation of rates; fair-rent Courts; Home Rule all round, Ireland first and India second; the abolition of the hereditary principle in legislation, and protection of workmen's rights and power of organisation by legislation. That is, they would establish unchecked the tyranny of trade unionism. There is a paper called The Clarion which represents Socialist views in this country, and I have been told as a fact that the editor of that paper says he is eagerly and anxiously looking to what happens to this Bill in your Lordships' House. Thus unless something is put in which will give security against the abuse of what you intend to be a wise provision for the good of the United Free Church, our Socialists will trade upon it as soon as this Bill passes, and they are in a position to do so.
  I would press on your Lordships the necessity of dealing very carefully with this question, and I ask that you should give greater security than there is in the Bill that the Free Church will be allowed to hold as much property as they can reasonably and legitimately require for the purposes for which they exist. I venture also to impress upon you that you should insist upon something being put in the Bill to secure that the property is taken voluntarily. I have in my hand a pamphlet in which reference is made to a manifesto that was issued before this question got into its present state and before the Elgin Commission. In this statement the Free Church intimated that they desired to retain only what was necessary for their Church, and hand on the remainder to the Crown. Their ipsissima verba are these—
  "We claim, as an undeniable right, possession of Free Church property to the extent the Church may require it, with a reasonable measure of opportunity to ascertain her requirements; but we have no desire or intention to retain anything which may be
  236
  beyond the limits of the Church's capacity to use and administer when fairly ascertained. Provided the scope of the judgment in congregational property was first admitted, as has been done in regard to the general property, and further, provided possession was given to the extent indicated, we should not only loyally submit to, but gladly welcome, the lawful authority which should undertake to administer the remainder."
  If such an offer was made why was it not accepted? Why was the state of consternation that existed in Scotland not put an end to at once by accepting this offer instead of waiting all these months and hiving the Elgin Commission and this Bill? At any rate that shows a readiness on the part of the Free Church to give up all that they cannot beneficially use. What I want further, as said, is to secure that there shall be a provision that what is done up to a certain point is done with the full knowledge, wish, and consent of the legal owners of the property. If it was enacted that the consent of the owner was required, that would guarantee your Lordships against the dangers which might possibly threaten property if this principle were pushed at any time in the direction I have stated. I will adopt, as my concluding remarks, the words contained in a letter issued from the office of the Free Church of Scotland, and which are as follows—
  "I beg your Lordships' earnest consideration of this Bill, which not only deeply affects the interests of the Free Church, but also raises most important questions of property, and proposes to introduce into legislation perilous and far-reaching principles."
  LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, on the Question for the House resolving itself into Commitee, I wish to say two or three words which, I think, will have the effect rather of accelerating business than of retarding it. It had been my intention to put Amendments on the Paper, but, on reflection, I decided not to do so, and I do not intend in the Committee stage to trouble the House with either Amendments or observations. My reason is this, that I have to view the matter as a practical man speaking on the 4th of August. I called the attention of the House on the Second Reading to some of the grave principles which I thought were involved in the Bill, and

  237
  which I intended to develop in Committee by Amendments; but I am bound to say that while the House, during the debate on the Second Reading, bestowed on me the generous attention which it is their custom to bestow on infrequent speakers, I felt that I made no headway, and I found, to change the metaphor, the ground around me extremely hard frozen. Even from very sound politicians I got extremely little encouragement. The real truth is that this is, as Lord Tweedmouth said, an agreed Bill, the agreement being that noble Lords on the other side should shut their ears very hard when the Question is put on Clause 5, while noble Lords on this side of the House should I pass by on the other side during the greater part of the proceedings.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I do not admit that. Personally, I am entirely in favour of Clause 5.
  LORD ROBERTSON: I do not know whether the noble Lord's colleagues are. When I find that the Government have at their disposal the vast forces of which any Government disposes at this time of the year, General Waldegrave and his faithful ally, General August, it would require greater courage than I possess to carry oat this enterprise. There are two advantages which I think the House will derive from my abstaining from moving Amendments. One is that I shall not inflict upon them several very tedious speeches, and I daresay that if I had done so that dulness would have proved infectious in some other quarters. The other advantage is this—great principles are involved, and I shrink strongly from crystallising opinion on this side of the House in favour of the dangerous principles to which I object. At present on this side of the House I believe there is a half-contemptuous tolerance for this measure as a Scottish experiment. If specific Amendments were put down and pressed to a division, the effect would be that good sound Conservatives would be committed to negative propositions of absolute soundness, and would specifically adopt measures which in the generality they are willing to allow to pass by
  238
  Upon these grounds, I think I do wisely, in the interest of the social convenience of the House, and in the interest of those great principles I have at heart, to abstain from opposition to the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

  Clause 1:—
  *The EARL OF WEMYSSmoved Amendments providing that the Commission should allocate the property "so far as beyond the reasonable capacity of the Free Church to use," and that among the circumstances to which they should have regard should be included "the judgments of the Law Courts, and any special historical or other associations attaching to particular parts of the said property."
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'so far as beyond the reasonable capacity of the Free Church to use adequate.'"
  "In line 9, after the word 'Church' to insert the words 'and whereas the Free Church had previously made public intimation that they were willing to surrender to the Sovereign power the property in question in so far as beyond their capacity to administer according to the trusts thereof.'"
  "In page 1, line 21, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'so far as beyond the reasonable capacity of the Free Church to use'"; and
  "In line 23, after the word 'case' to insert the words 'including the judgments of the Law Courts, and any special historical or other associations attaching to particular parts of the said property.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LINLITHGOW)said he was sorry to say that His Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendments, as they would limit the discretion of the Commissioners and alter the whole basis of the Bill. The first sub-section of Clause 1, which the noble Earl desired to amend, was the key of the whole Bill; and, subject to the provisions in the two following sub-sections, the intention of the Governmen was to give the Commissioners a free hand. The word

  239
  "adequate," which his noble friend desired to in roduce into the preamble, was neither desirable nor necessary. As it stood, the second paragraph of the preamble referred very briefly to the conclusions of the Royal Commission; but in the operative part of the Bill, in Clause 1, Sub-section 1, the phrase "adequate provision" was expressly inserted as a direction to the Commissioners. In those circumstances he had to ask the House to resist the Amendments.
  On Question. Amendments negatived.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  THE EARL OF CAMPEKDOWNasked the Secretary for Scotland a question as to the procedure before the Commission. He concluded that under Clause 5 it would be competent for the Commissioners to allow counsel to appear before them, but he would like to hear from the noble Marquess whether, having regard to the important circumstances, it might not be desirable to make it imperative on them to hear counsel if the parties so desired.
  THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOWsaid he had considerable sympathy with the question which the noble Earl had asked. It would, of course, be quite competent for the Commissioners to decide to hear parties by counsel, but he did not think it would be desirable to put an imperative order to that effect in the Bill. They had selected Commissioners in whom, he believed, the country had the greatest confidence, and they had desired to avoid, as much as possible, tying their hands.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that demands are constantly made on borough councils to provide employment to able-bodied men, and that such demands are constantly granted at the expense of the rates, and without regard to the provision made and the conditions required by the Poor Law, the Government will consider the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the Poor Laws of the country, the law bearing on the administration of relief, the administration of poor relief, and the constitution and efficiency of the bodies engaged in that administration, and, taking due account of the circumstances of the present time, including the number, conditions, and administration of voluntary and endowed charities, to report what amendments, if any, should be made in the laws and in the system and administration of public and voluntary relief.
  The noble Earl said:—My Lords, I desire at the outset to express my pleasure that His Majesty's Government have seen it to be right and proper to appoint such a Commission as is referred to in my Question. The wording of the Question is not my own. It is the wording of those who are more competent than I am to consider the questions dealt with. The Charity Organisation Society and other bodies have met and talked the whole thing over, and the notice was sent to me in the form of a Question for me to ask with the full approval of all those who are interested in, and have taken great pains to study, questions of Poor Law.
  As regards the question of the unemployed you have plenty of object-lessons. You have the object-lesson which was afforded by the lax administration of our Poor Law in England seventy years ago. Again, to take a case abroad, there was the result of State action in France in 1848, as shown by the failure of the Ateliers Nationaux, or public workshops, established by Monsieur Louis Blanc in that year. The establishment of those workshops produced the following results—the stoppage of private trade, the demoralisation of workmen, impending bankruptcy of the Government, and the forced

  241
  abandonment of the national workshops. On February 28th, 8,000 men were supposed to be out of work; March 15th, 14,000 employed; March 20th, work for 12,000 found (half - time); March 22nd, cost 50,000 francs per diem; April 1st, 40,000 men employed; April 16th, 66,000 employed, cost, 94,500 francs daily; May 25th, 87,000 men employed; June 20th, 115,000 men employed; credit of 3,000,000 francs voted by Chambers, with more to follow. June 28th, national workshops closed. This followed by insurrection; Cavagnac Dictator; 12,000 workmen killed in the streets of Paris. That is what occurred in France in the year 1848, and I would specially call your Lordships' attention to these wise words spoken at that time by Monsieur Lamartine. He said—
  "To decree the right of each individual to all manner of work was to decree the absorption or confiscation of capital by taxation (rates) and its destruction, which was equivalent to the absolute annihilation of labour. He did not suppose there was in the assembly any one so wild as to preach the abolition of capital to multiply work—in other words, the drying up of the spring in order to increase the How of water."
  My Lords, I hope the Government and your Lordships will take these wise words well to heart. I think all who have the welfare of the poor at heart ought to be grateful to the Government for their action in consenting to the appointment of a Commission. As everything depends upon the constitution of the Commission, I hope the Government will keep off it all what I would call "goody-goodies," no matter in which House they may sit.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the noble Earl has long desired that an inquiry should be held into the working of the Poor Law, and it is, therefore, particularly satisfactory to me to be able to refer him to the announcement lately made by the Prime Minister that such an inquiry is to take place. It will be a full inquiry, and I am justified in saying that it will cover the whole field of the Question which the noble Earl has put on the Paper. That being so, I do not think that I am called upon to take notice of
  242
  the observations which he made in asking the Question. I am not yet able to tell the noble Earl how the Commission will be constituted, or whether that particular class to which he takes exception will be excluded from it, but that it will be a full and adequate inquiry I have no doubt whatever.

  MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I state in a few words its object. In order to facilitate the admission of colonially trained and registered medical men to practise in Great Britain and hold appointments in the Imperial service, the Act of 1886 provided for reciprocity between the mother country and such of the self-governing Colonies as might comply with certain conditions, but that Act expressly stipulates that when any colony had a provincial and a federal organisation such reciprocal arrangements should be entered into with the federal Government and not the provincial. In the case of Canada the British North America Act of 1867, enacted by the Imperial Parliament, expressly provides that education shall be entirely under the control of the provincial and not the federal Governments, so that it is impossible to bring the Act of 1886 into force with Canada. It is impracticable to amend the British North America Act of 1867, and to transfer the control of education to the federal authorities, and therefore it is the object of this Bill to amend the Medical Act of 1886 without in any way interfering with the principle, and to enable reciprocal arrangements to be entered into either with the federal or provincial Governments.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): I have to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they have no intention of opposing the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  First Report of the Select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.

  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order): Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, at quarter past Four o'clock.