Lords Sitting of 14 December 1906

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ardrossan, Saltcoats and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dumbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Falkirk and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill. (No. 246.) Edinburgh Suburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. (No. 247.) Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a; (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), and reported from the Committee, and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against; of inhabitants of parish of Fretherne; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): My Lords, I beg to move, in accordance with the notice I have given, that Standing Order No. XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session. I may say that I have not the slightest intention of applying that Motion to any contested matter if I can possibly help it.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No, XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now received I desire to make a brief statement with regard to some observations made by my noble friend opposite, Lord Mayo, on an earlier stage of the Bill. I ought no doubt to have challenged the statement when it was made, but I ask the leave of your Lordships to call attention to it on this occasion. The statement made by the noble Earl was to the effect that Sir Antony MacDonnell went down to Loughrea to quell a disturbance that arose there, and threw out a suggestion that he would facilitate the passage of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill through Parliament or possibly introduce some particular clause into the Bill. I desire to say, on Sir Antony's behalf, that that was not the case. He went down to Loughrea to quell what might have been a very awkward disturbance, and he was successful in the accomplishment of that very difficult task; but he gave no such pledge and made no suck statement as the noble Earl suggested in his speech the other night. This is what occurred at the conference at Loughrea. A certain gentleman named Duffy asserted that the Under-Secretary had given some undertaking with regard to the passage of this Bill through Parliament; but Sir Antony MacDonnell then said—
  "I gave no such pledge from the beginning to the end of this transaction. The Chief Secretary has given no pledge in connection with this business, and I myself have given no pledge whatever. I have most carefully avoided the discussion of any matter except the question of the cessation of resistance to the execution of the sheriff's writ."
  The whole of the representations made by Sir Antony at the conference held at Loughrea were as to the absolute

  783
  unwisdom of pushing to any further extremes the resistance to the execution of the sheriff's writ. I am quite sure the noble Earl opposite would not desire to misrepresent the action or words of anyone, and, after what I have said, he will probably wish to withdraw what he stated the other night. I think it is only the barest justice to a distinguished public servant like Sir Antony MacDonnell that I should make the brief statement that I have thought it my duty to make on this Motion.
  Moved, "That this Report be now Teceived."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to say, first, that I am extremely obliged to the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving me notice last night of his intention to make this statement. I am very sorry that any words that fell from me should have hurt Sir Antony MacDonnell's feelings. He is an official for whom I have the greatest respect. His Indian record was quite sufficient, especially for one who bears the name I bear, to make me respect him. If Sir Antony MacDonnell's visit to Loughrea was construed by everybody in Ireland to mean quite a different thing from what he really went down for, it was the fault of His Majesty's Government; because in May, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Attorney-General for Ireland pointed out that—
  "It was the principle of compensation for disturbance as applied to agricultural holdings that undoubtedly led to the fixing of fair rents, and, directly they admitted the principle of compensation for disturbance in the case of town tenants, it became necessary to consider the propriety of fixing fair rents, and he thought the House should pause and consider whether it was right to allow rents to be fixed on all shops and houses held for the purpose of residence."
  Then in June the Loughrea evictions took place, and the whole of the Press in Ireland took Sir Antony MacDonnell's visit to mean that the Town Tenants Bill was going to be taken up by the Government. This view was taken not only in the Unionist Press, but the Freeman's Journal stated that the part taken by Sir Antony MacDonnell in the Loughrea incident pledged him to make representations to the Govern-
  784
  ment as to the necessity of passing this session a moderate and sufficient Town Tenants Bill; and that Sir Antony's representations could not, without personal slight, be refused. Then there was a Town Tenants League meeting in Dublin, presided over by Mr. Field, M.P., and at that meeting the Secretary of the League reiterated exactly what the Freeman's Journal had said. The matter with regard to Sir Antony MacDonnell is between Sir Antony and myself. I repeat that I am very sorry that any words that fell from me should have hurt Sir Antony's feelings, and when I see him in Dublin, as no doubt I shortly will, I shall have pleasure in telling him so.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I am very sorry to prolong this discussion at a moment when your Lord ships want to get on with the business. But I must say this. I know Sir Antony MacDonnell very well. I have known him for many years. I was associated with him in India and know him to be a man of the highest possible honour, and I am quite sure the noble Earl opposite fully accepts Sir Antony MacDonnell's statement.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am very glad to hear that the noble Earl accepts that statement. It really does not matter what was said in this newspaper or in that. The question is whether Sir Antony MacDonnell's statement is to be received or not. The noble Earl frankly and honourably accepts Sir Antony's statement; and there is nothing more to be said.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think we are indebted to my noble friend behind me (the Earl of Mayo) for having elicited from the noble Lord who spoke just now a categorical contradiction of a mischievous rumour which has been widely circulated with regard to an alleged transaction between the Under-Secretary and persons involved in the regrettable occurrences at Loughrea. I venture to express agreement with what was said

  785
  by my noble friend just now when he suggested to your Lordships that if any misconception arose on this point it was very largely due to the sudden volte face of His Majesty's Government upon this most important question of compensation for disturbance. My noble friend quoted from the statements of the Attorney-General for Ireland—
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I took the passage from Hansard.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl quoted a passage showing that as lately as May last His Majesty's Government were apparently wholly opposed to the principle of compensation which we now find in this Bill. The principle of compensation is now accepted by the Government; and in the circumstances it really is not surprising that people with ingenious minds should search for a reason to explain so sudden a change of front. Anyhow, I hope the discussion which has taken place has cleared the air, and I do not desire to prolong it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MAYOmoved an Amendment to Clause 2 (limitation of tenant's right in certain cases), the object of which was to make it clear that the granting of a building lease was regarded in the Bill as a valuable consideration. He said the question whether a building lease was a valuable consideration was a matter of great dispute among lawyers. In the House of Commons the Attorney-General for Ireland had declared that the lease in itself was a valuable consideration. If that was so, the words in his Amendment should be inserted to make that point clear and to prevent litigation. He felt that there was really very little margin left in Ireland for argument by legal gentlemen. Already a great deal of the money of landlords and tenants had gone into the pockets of the lawyers, and unless the Committee agreed to the insertion of the words "including a building lease" in this clause he saw a great prospect of more money going in the same direction. On broad grounds he thought it advisable that his Amendment should be inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 23, after the word 'consideration' to insert the words 'including a building lease."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  LORD DENMANdid not think any very great harm would be caused if these words were inserted, but he submitted that they were unnecessary, as the point was already covered by subsection (4) of Clause 3.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that was the subsection the noble Earl was seeking to amend.
  LORD DENMANsaid his point was that building leases were already, by this subsection, excluded from the provisions of the Bill. He understood, moreover, that the words in the subsection met the objection of Sir E. Carson on this point.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought it would be wiser and more prudent to insert the words of the Amendment. He had no doubt that the Government and the Attorney-General for Ireland intended this clause to have the effect of excluding building leases, but it was a great deal better to say so clearly. The insertion of the words could do no possible harm.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe): The point is not a very important one, and I am anxious not to waste any time over it. But I should like to put it to the noble and learned Lord whether, if you use the words "a valuable consideration" and then particularly mention a building lease, it would not seem to imply that a building lease is not a contract for valuable consideration.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: The word "including" would meet that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If the Amendment is pressed we shall not resist it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DUNBOYNEhad three Amendments on the Paper to Clause 3, the effect of which was to make Clause 3 read—
  "Where a tenant of a holding proposes to make improvements in his holding, he shall

  787
  send to his landlord notice, in the prescribed manner, of his intention to make such improvements, together with a specification and plan of the proposed improvements, and if the landlord or his known agent, does not within three months after the receipt of the notice send notice of objection, in the prescribed manner, to the tenant, the tenant may proceed to make the proposed improvements; but if the landlord or his agent sends such notice, etc."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'or' and to insert the word 'and."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  LORD DENMANsaid it might save time if he stated at once that the Government were willing to accept the Amendment just moved and the other two Amendments to this Clause standing in the name of Lord Dunboyne.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'in his absence'; and in line 32, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words 'or his agent."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEmoved an Amendment to alter the interest on the sum payable for a period of twenty five years from £3 per cent. per annum to £4 per cent. He said it was his intention to have moved this Amendment in the Committee stage, but by some mistake the Amendment was not put on the Paper. The subsection in which his Amendment came was intended to provide that the landlord might, if he chose, make the necessary improvements himself. He thought their Lord ships would all agree that this was a very desirable provision, as it would prevent much friction and litigation on the termination of a lease. It was provided that repayment might be made in two ways. The landlord might either charge the tenant a sum not exceeding £5 per cent. per annum on the money expended, or, if the tenant preferred it, the tenant might agree to pay such annual sum for a period of twenty-five years as would repay the outlay in the said period, with interest at the rate of £3 per cent. per annum. His Amendment was to insert "£4" instead of
  788
  "£3" per cent. His reasons for moving this Amendment were two. In the first place, owing to the legislation of the last thirty years, landlords in Ireland were impoverished and had not the capital to effect the improvements and would necessarily have to borrow; and, in the second place, again owing to the action of legislation, the value of land had depreciated in Ireland and it was extremely difficult for landlords to borrow at all on it. It was quite evident, at any rate, that no landlord would be able to borrow at less than 4 per cent. If the Government could not see their way to accept his Amendment he suggested, as an alternative course, that they should permit the Board of Works to advance money to landlords for this purpose, the landlord in no case charging the tenant more than he paid himself. The Board of Works charged interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the money lent by them to landlords; that was to say, the Government, as represented by the Board of Works, did not think it safe to lend money at less than 3½ per cent.; yet in this Bill they were expecting the landlord to be satisfied with only 3 per cent.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 10, to leave out the word 'three' and to insert the word 'four".—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  LORD DENMANregretted that he was unable to accept the Amendment. The noble Lord had argued as if the landlord would be compelled under the Bill to borrow money. This was only a provisional clause empowering the landlord, if he chose, to execute the improvement himself. There was no obligation on the landlord to borrow money, and therefore he did not see why the rate of interest should be raised in order to enable him to do so. The Government were of opinion that 3 per cent was a reasonable rate of interest, and that 4 per cent. would in the circumstances be exorbitant. The landlord had perfect security for the repayment of the money he expended since he had a reversion on the property and would be repaid the capital sum in twenty-five years.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEadmitted that it was only optional as far

  789
  as the landlord was concerned, but said it was eminently desirable that the improvement should be made by the landlord and not by the tenant, in order to avoid the litigation and friction that would otherwise constantly arise. As to 4 per cent. being an exorbitant rate of interest, he repeated that the Board of Works charged 3½ per cent.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. It really is a question of security, and the security for the money is so good that there is no reason whatever for a rate of more than 3 per cent. per annum If the rate of interest were higher on such a gilt-edged security as this I imagine landlords would be tempted to execute improvements of all kinds in anticipation of obtaining this remarkably good investment for their money.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENagreed with the noble Earl the Lord President that 3 per cent. was a sufficiently high rate of interest. It had occurred to him that the tenant would be in considerable doubt whether to consent to be charged 5 per cent. on the outlay incurred, or 3 per cent. and a sufficient sum to liquidate the cost of the improvement in twenty-five years. He thought it would be simpler if a specified sum were mentioned showing how much more it would cost to liquidate the outlay in twenty-five years.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not quite sure whether I agree with the noble Earl the Lord President in thinking that an investment of this kind is a gilt-edged one which would afford great attractions to any one desiring to invest his money with absolutely complete security. But be that as it may, I cannot advise my noble friend to press his Amendment. There is some force in what the noble Lord opposite has said as to the matter being an optional one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DENMANmoved an Amendment to Clause 5 (compensation for unreasonable disturbance) to omit the words "for reasons inconsistent with good
  790
  estate management" from the statement of conditions under which disturbance would entitle the tenant to compensation. He said the words in question had been inserted at the instance of Lord Donoughmore, but he did not find that they were necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 9, to leave out from the word 'cause' to the word 'terminates' in line 10."—(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved an Amendment to the clause providing that the tenant should be entitled to compensation for "the loss of goodwill and the expense" which he incurred in connection with removal instead of for "the loss or expense" so incurred. This Amendment was one to which His Majesty's Government attached very great importance. Clause 5 was not at all applicable to the case of shops and business premises unless words were inserted to secure the right of the tenant to compensation for goodwill. The proportion which goodwill bore in the case of an agricultural holding was infinitesimally small compared to goodwill in regard to shop tenancies. Goodwill was a thing which was recognised at law. It was something which could be bought and sold. Compensation for goodwill had been recognised in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. He would take the instance of the Holborn and Strand Improvement. In that case the London County Council had to compensate the landlords for taking their premises and also the tenants of the shops for the loss of their goodwill. The principle, therefore, was recognised in an English Act of Parliament, and it should certainly be included in this clause. As the clause at present stood, it only compensated the tenant for little more than the expense of removal. This did not go at all far enough to meet what they considered just to the tenant. The Government, as he had said, attached vital importance to this Amendment, and he hoped noble Lords opposite would see their way to accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 19, to leave out the word 'or' and to insert the words 'of goodwill and

  791
  the,' and to leave out the words 'the tenant."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would not pretend for an instant that he liked the Amendment, but he admitted that there was some force in the noble Lord's argument that the conditions of goodwill in towns were different from those in the case of agricultural holdings. Therefore he did not intend to vote against the Amendment, although he did not like it a bit.
  THE EARL OF MAYOdid not see why the word "expense" should be retained. Surely compensation for loss of goodwill was quite sufficient. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that point.
  LORD DENMANsaid he would consider the point between this and the next stage, but he could hold out no promise in regard to it.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENhoped the Government would retain the word "expense." Compensation limited to five years rent appeared to him to be little enough for the loss a tenant would sustain in the matter of goodwill. The expense a tenant might be put to in removing his goods and chattels, probably from one town to another, would be a serious burden. He hoped the Government would not consent to any limitation of the compensation in the way suggested by Lord Mayo.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I should like to put it to Lord Mayo whether he thinks it is really worth while to leave this matter open, because I can hold out no hope to him that we can reconsider it. There are bound, I think, to be cases where the question of expense must enter. The word "expense" has been in the Bill ever since it has been before your Lordships, and the noble Earl took no exception to it before. I hope he will be content to let the word remain.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I agree.
  LORD CASTLETOWNasked whether, in the event of a shop being sold up by the tenant's creditors, the landlord would be obliged to compensate the outgoing
  792
  tenant for the goodwill, or whether the goodwill would go to the insolvent tenant's creditors.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid that, so far as that is a purely legal question, I am not competent to answer it. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will reply. But I certainly have no intention of plunging into these deep waters.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Loreburn): I have not closely studied the Bill with a view to this point. But if any person is entitled to compensation of any sort he would have to account for that to his creditors in the event of bankruptcy. It would be part of his estate divisible among the creditors.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved to leave out the word "one" and to insert the word "five" in the proviso which read—
  "Provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed one years rent of the holding."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 22, to leave out the word 'one' and to insert the word 'five."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the Government had previously expressed their willingness to agree to three years, and, though his Irish nature would prompt him to offer two years in order to try and strike a bargain, he would accept three years in the Government were still willing to agree to that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: As the noble Earl puts it in that way we will also accept three years.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved an Amendment to extend the operation of the clause to premises occupied "to a substantial extent for business purposes.' This was, he said, a matter on which they

  793
  hoped to come to some agreement with noble Lords opposite. He understood that Lord Ashbourne desired to insert the words "trade or" before the words "business purposes." If that would make the Amendment acceptable to noble Lords opposite he would be glad to have those words inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 31, to leave out the word 'partly' and to insert the words 'to a substantial extent."—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think it would read better with the words "trade or" inserted.
  LORD DENMAN: Then I will add them.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would rather have the word "business" out. Business covered an immense number of cases which trade would not cover. Judging from the Bill, the intention of the Government was to protect shopkeepers; but the word "business" would, he was afraid, include stockbrokers, solicitors, land agents, commission agents, and many other people not intended to be covered by the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl is not correct in saying that the Bill is intended to apply to shopkeepers only. Anyone who has lived in Ireland, as I have, must have been struck by the enormous number of small professional persons in that country. I confess I do not quite see why a solicitor or a small country doctor should not come under the purview of this Bill just as much as a shopkeeper. The arguments which apply to one seem to me to apply equally to the others, and I am afraid for that reason we should have to oppose the omission of the word "business."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think this illustrates the difficulty, when you are departing, as you are in this Bill, from sound principle, of drawing a scientific frontier with the object of restricting those departures. I do not see how such a frontier as my noble friend Lord Donoughmore desires can be drawn,
  794
  and I therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that these small business and professional people could not equitably be excluded from the compensation accorded to their neighbours.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid he would have thought that solicitors would make sufficient from the troubles that would arise under the Bill without coming within the compensation provision.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to know how it is proposed that the words should read. I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has amended his Amendment by adding the words "trade or," and that it is now porposed that the sub-section should read—
  "This section shall apply only to houses shops and other buildings occupied wholly or to a substantial extent for trade or business purposes."
  LORD DENMAN: That is so.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD CLONBROCKsaid the Amendment which stood in his name proposed to exempt from the operation of the clause tenancies of three different kinds. First, he proposed to exempt tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act. He did so because these tenancies would be entered into by people with their eyes open, and with a full knowledge of their position. Secondly, he proposed to exempt leases made after the passing of the Act for terms of thirty-one years, or for a life or lives. Thirty-one years was a long period, and, as was pointed out by the Duke of Northumberland in the discussion on the Land Tenure Bill, a man could not complain of having to leave his house at the expiration of a term to which he had himself agreed. The third kind of tenancy he referred to were tenancies from year to year existing at the passing of the Act where the rent of the holding was at or over £30 per annum. He thought the same argument applied to those tenancies. The persons concerned were very well able to make their own bargains. He would like to refer to a remark made by the Lord President of the Council when the Bill was in Committee. The noble

  795
  Earl seemed to think that Irish tenants as a rule were an ingenuous and confiding set of persons utterly at the mercy of the wily and unscrupulous landlord, if such there were. The noble Earl seemed to have taken his idea of an Irishman from the Irishman usually depicted on the stage, who capers about in the highest possible spirits, with a complete disregard for such considerations as money, or the future, or anything else except the enjoyment of the moment; but anyone who had had experience of that class in Ireland would know that they were for the most part remarkably astute and had a very keen eye for the main chance. Whatever qualities they might be deficient in which might militate against their success in life it was certainly not want of intelligence or concern for what they conceived to be their own interests. He hoped the provision in the clause would be limited in the way he proposed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 31, after the word 'purposes' to insert the words, 'and which are held (a) under tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act, or (b) under leases made after the passing of this Act, for terms of less than thirty-one years, or for a life or lives, or (c) under tenancies from year to year existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £30 per annum."(Lord Clonbrock.)
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government were quite unable to entertain the Amendment, which in their opinion was most unreasonable. Its effect would be to exclude those cases which it was hoped would come within the opera-of the clause. Under the Act of 1870 existing tenancies from year to year came within the operation of the Act if the rent was not more than £100. The noble Lord proposed to substitute £30, which was an important difference. The Government attached very great importance to this matter, and if their Lordships pressed the Amendment the consequences might be very far-reaching. He desired, however, if possible, to meet the noble Lord, and as a solution of the difficulty he suggested that the Amendment should stand down to the letter (c), and that after the word "under," which followed, the words "tenancies from year to year "should be struck out and
  796
  the words "contracts of tenancy" substituted; and that the remainder of the Amendment should stand with this exception, that the words "one hundred pounds "be substituted for thirty pounds in the last line of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked Lord Clonbrock to inform the House to what the Bill would apply if his Amendment were carried. As he understood it, it would not apply to the past, to the present, or to the future. What effect, therefore, would the Bill have if the Amendment were adopted?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid there was no doubt the Amendment was open to the criticism that it would substantially affect the width of the application of the clause, and he quite understood the ground of objection taken by the Government. Perhaps Lord Clonbrock would consider whether he could recast the wording and put it in a shape less objectionable to the Government, and whether thirty-one year leases could not be placed in a category that could be dealt with separately. The simplicity of the suggestion to substitute £100 for £30 was interesting to any one acquainted with the extremely small rents that obtained in country towns in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid we shall not be able to go beyond the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Denman. In the interest of the saving of time, if we could come to terms on these words now it would be a very great advantage. Your Lordships will see that to postpone any point of substance to the Third Reading at the stage of the session at which we have arrived is a difficult matter.
  *THE EARL OF PEMBROKEasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to state exactly what the Government's proposal was.
  LORD DENMANreplied that the Government accepted Lord Clonbrock's Amendment down to the words "life or lives." After that it would read—
  "or (c) under contracts of tenancy existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £100 per annum."
  LORD ASHBOURNEwas still unable to understand how the Amendment in this form could effect the object desired.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We accept (a) and (b) of Lord Clonbrock's Amendment, not because we like them very much but because we are obliged to; but that is on the understanding that (c) as amended in the terms read out by my noble friend also forms part of the clause.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked Lord Denman to kindly read the clause as it would then stand.
  LORD DENMAN: The clause as it is proposed to be amended, if Lord Clonbrock accepts our alterations at the end of the Amendment, would read—
  "This section shall apply only to houses, shops, and other buildings occupied wholly or to a substantial extent for trade or business purposes, and which are held (a) under tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act, or (b) under leases made after the passing of this Act for terms of less than thirty-one years, or for a life or lives, or (c) under contracts of tenancy existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £100 per annum.
  *LORD CLONBROCKsaid that if the clause read in that way he feared there must be a mistake in the drafting of his Amendment, because otherwise the tenancies which he proposed to exempt from the operation of the clause would be included.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsuggested that the difficulty might be got over by inserting the word "not" before the word "held" at the beginning of Lord Clonbrock's Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, to carry out Lord Clonbrock's intention something of that kind is required.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really do not know how it is proposed that this Amendment should be dealt with; but it is not my business.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Would not the noble Lord's point be met by inserting the words "other than those" which are held, etc.?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid his advice to Lord Clonbrock would be to take the words as suggested by the Government and then consider them before Third Reading. So far as he could tell, the clause did not even now read correctly, but when they saw it as amended in the print of the Bill they could consider what further alteration was necessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthen put the Amendment as read by Lord Denman, with the addition, at the beginning of the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper, of the words "other than those "held (a), etc.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BARRYMOREmoved to add to Clause 9 a new sub-section providing that "notwithstanding anything in this section, a tenant of a holding whose rent is not less than £30 per annum, shall not be entitled to make any claim for compensation under any provision of the Bill in cases where the tenant has contracted in writing with his landlord that he will not make any such claim." The Government, he thought, could not wish to destroy the opportunity of allowing tenants to contract out of the Act if they wished, and especially those who were capable of understanding it. A rent of £30 in Ireland represented a very substantial man who was quite capable of making any kind of contract.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 18, after the word, 'compulsion' to insert the following new subsection: (2) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a tenant of a holding whose rent is not less than thirty pounds per annum, shall not be entitled to make any claim for compensation under any provision of this Act in cases where the tenant has contracted in writing with his landlord that he will not make any such claim."—(Lord Barrymore.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that he did not like the Amendment, because it weakened the clause. The point of doubt and difficulty was the exact figure of rent at which it was reasonable to suppose that the tenant was not likely to yield to any undue pressure exercised by the landlord. He preferred the existing figure of the Act of 1881—namely, £150 a year. He

  799
  should like, if noble Lords opposite could see their way, to increase the figure above that suggested in the Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought that if any limitation were put in at all it should be a real one. He did not contend that £30 was absolutely the correct figure, but £150 would be a fanciful limitation.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is important in considering this matter to have regard to the wording of the clause as it stands. I will read it—
  "Any contract (other than a contract either to make or not to make an improvement) made after the passing of this Act, by virtue of which a tenant would be, directly or indirectly, deprived of his right to obtain compensation under this Act, shall be void unless the court adjudicating upon a claim for compensation by such tenant shall, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, be of opinion that such contract was reasonable and that it was entered into by the parties without any direct or indirect compulsion."
  If the latter part of the clause was not there I think there would be far more to be said for the noble Lord's suggestion than there is. There is nothing to prevent people making contracts to stand out of this compensation question, and I have no doubt a considerable number will. In fact I should think that in the cases of large businesses it would probably be almost the invariable rule. In a case of that kind, supposing a man were to go back on his contract and attempt all the same to get compensation, the court would point out that he obviously had not been a subject of compulsion and consequently he must hold by his contract. I should have thought that was a sufficient general safeguard to everybody, but if the noble Lord thinks it is important to leave out people on a larger scale I shall be prepared to offer the figure of £100 as in the other case. I am afraid I could not go beyond that, for the reason that the clause as it stands seems to me to offer a perfectly reasonable protection to everybody who wants to stand out of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid this was not a very big point. His own view was that they were sufficiently safeguarded under the clause as it stood, and he for one would be inclined to appeal
  800
  to Lord Barrymore not press the Amendment.
  LORD DUNBOYNEintimated his intention of moving an Amendment on Third Reading putting the onus of proof on a tenant who had entered into a contract to show that it was unreasonable or obtained by duress instead of putting the onus on the landlord to prove the contrary.
  LORD BARRYMOREsaid that as his noble friends around him seemed to think there was no very great value in the Amendment he would withdraw it, but he confessed that he abandoned it with regret.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DENMANmoved to omit subsections (3) and (4), which dealt with appeals, and to insert a new clause. He explained that the new clause had been drafted to meet an objection of noble Lords opposite, and he understood they were not unwilling to accept it, possibly in preference to the new sub-section standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Dunboyne.
  Amendment moved—
  "In pages 5 and 6, to leave out sub-sections (3) and (4); and to insert the following new clause: (1) Any person aggrieved by any determination of the county court under this Act may appeal either—(a) to the Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, relating to appeals in the case of ordinary civil bills; or (b) to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court. Provided that if in any proceedings appeals are taken both to the Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court and to the Court of Appeal, the appeals shall be heard together by such judge, and a further appeal may be taken from his determination to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court."—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD DUNBOYNEhad the following Amendment on the Paper—
  "In pages 5 and 6, to leave out sub-sections 3 and 4 and insert the following new sub-section: '(3) An appeal from any determination of the county court under this Act shall, at the option of the party appealing, lie either to the Court of Appeal or to the Judge of Assize. In the former case the appeal shall be brought within the time, in the manner, and in accordance with

  801
  the conditions prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court, and in the latter case the enactments in the County Court (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, relating to appeals in the case of ordinary civil bill, shall apply. A proceeding in the nature of a cross appeal brought by any person who is a party to the appeal first instituted, or any second appeal from the determination of the county court in any particular case brought by any person interested therein shall only lie to that tribunal before which the appeal first instituted has been taken while the same is pending and undisposed of, save as aforesaid the determination of the county court shall be final."
  He said he would withdraw this Amendment in favour of the one moved by Lord Denman. But perhaps the noble Lord would explain the meaning of the words "Judge of the High Court." Would that be a rehearing before the Judge in Dublin who would hear witnesses viva voce, or an appeal on the notes of the County Court Judge.
  LORD DENMANsaid the words "Judge of the high Court" had been put in to meet the special case of Dublin and for no other purpose. As to whether evidence would be heard by the Judge, he understood that was the case.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Lord who had just sat down was quite correct. The Judge of Assize had an absolute rehearing and witnesses were called up. "Judge of the High Court" was put in to meet the special case of Dublin, where appeals from the Recorder were heard from time to time at the Four Courts. The Judge in Dublin could only hear the Dublin appeals from the recorder.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DROGHEDAmoved to insert a new sub-section in Clause 11 (proceedings in respect of claims).
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 13, after the word 'upon' to insert the following new sub-section. (2) Section 29 (as far as unrepealed) and sections 30, 31, and 32 of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to proceedings in respect of claims under this Act".—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
  LORD DENMANsaid he was obliged to the noble Earl for having submitted to him privately his reasons for moving the
  802
  Amendment. He understood that the noble Earl desired particularly to raise the case of limited owners and also the case of trustees. He was advised that the case of limited owners was covered by Section 27 of the Act of 1870, and, with regard to the case of trustees, he had in his hand a new clause which was copied out of the English Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 with only one or two differences to make it applicable to Ireland. He hoped this would meet the particular points the noble Earl desired to raise in moving this Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he understood the noble Lord was proceeding in this matter on the advice of the Attorney-General for Ireland, and if his right hon. friend was satisfied with the clause the noble Lord had in his hand he suggested that it would be convenient if it were inserted now. They would take it on trust, and consider before the Third Reading whether or not it required modification.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, after Clause 11, to insert a new clause".—(Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Clause fills a whole page. I will read it if the Committee wish.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
  On Question, new clause agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved to amend Clause 12 (Holdings to which the Act applies) by substituting for "towns" the words "urban districts, towns, or villages." This would make the Act apply to houses, shops, and other buildings situated in urban districts, towns, or villages.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 16, to leave out the word 'towns' and to insert the words 'urban districts, towns, or villages."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKE,while acknowledging that the Government had tried to meet a point he made the other

  803
  day, would much rather the Amendment should stop at urban districts and towns. It would be fairer to landowners to leave out villages altogether. Since he had moved his own Amendment he had received many communications from Ireland showing that everybody was surprised that this Town Tenants Bill should be made to apply to villages. He hoped the Government would consent to strike out the word "villages."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If anybody in this House is satiated with the difference between urban and rural I am that person. It certainly is a difficult matter in these cases to draw a very distinct line, but I am afraid we are not prepared to part with the word "villages." Cases of hard ship may arise under the existing state of things from the fact that a man has not got a choice of sites owing to the whole town or village belonging to one landlord. Those cases are clearly the ones which could in most cases be met by the word "village." The sort of hardship which would arise under the present condition of things would be accentuated by leaving out the word "village." I do not know of any definition of "village," and I am afraid we must trust to the Courts of law to find one in time.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid that under this Bill the definition of a town would have to be left to the Courts to decide, and now they would have to decide the further question "when is a village not a village?"
  *THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid that in the circumstances he would withdraw his opposition to the insertion of the word "villages."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked permission to move an Amendment which was not on the Paper. In the definition clause (Clause 13) it was provided that—
  " 'Prescribed' means prescribed by rules of the County Court."
  He moved to add the words "made after notice sent to or consultation with the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland." These words were inserted last year in
  804
  the Labourers Act, and he thought it would be wise to include them here.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 33, after the word 'Court' to insert the words 'made after notice sent to or consultation with the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD DENMANsaid it was difficult off-hand to express any opinion on the Amendment, but as it had the great authority of the noble and learned Lord he thought they ought to accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DUNBOYNE,on behalf of Lord Oranmore and Browne, proposed that the Act should come into operation on 1st July, 1907, instead of January 1st next. There would not be sufficient notice to those concerned if the Act had to be put in working in a fortnight.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 6, to leave out the word 'January' and to insert the word 'July."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  LORD DENMANregretted to be obliged to resist this Amendment to postpone the operation of the measure. When the Bill was introduced it was to be put in operation immediately on its passing, and the insertion of 1st January, 1907, had been a concession made, to the Ulster Members. Postponing the operation of the Act for six months would mean that luring all that time no improvements whatever would be made in Ireland, It would be against human nature to expect a tenant to do repairs at his own cost when by waiting until the Act came into force he could make the landlord pay. The Government must insist upon the late of 1st January remaining in the Bill. He must remind noble Lords that they had already substantially altered the Bill. They had knocked out the provision making the Act retrospective, they had whittled down its operation by limiting its scope in rural districts to villages, and in various other ways, and he must warn them that any further alteration might result in the Bill being dropped altogether. He did not think it would drive noble Lords opposite to

  805
  despair if the Bill was dropped, but he hoped that as the Bill was asked for by the majority of the Irish people their Lordships would not, persist in an Amendment which might result in the Bill being dropped altogether.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Lord had used language of a minatory character which was quite uncalled for by the course of the debate. He thought nothing could have been more reasonable than the manner in which noble Lords on his side of the House had conducted the discussions on this measure.
  As to the question of the date he did not see how it was physically possible for the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to summon together his council of County Court Judges in the Christmas holidays in order to pass the rules necessary under the Bill. As a matter of administration it was nearly impossible to get the rules passed, printed, and gazetted before 1st January. There was no desire unduly to press the Government on the matter, and perhaps the point would be considered before the next stage.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I need hardly say that we have no complaint to make of the way noble Lords opposite have conducted the discussions on this Bill; but noble Lords have made one or two very substantial changes in the Bill, particularly the one which has destroyed its retrospective character. As regards this particular point it is exceedingly difficult for us to give way. A measure of this character as a rule comes into operation on its passing, and for this very obvious reason—if it did not come into operation quickly certain unscrupulous persons could make arrangements to defeat its provisions. As this Bill was originally introduced it was provided that it should come into operation on its passing, and it was only during the course of this autumn session, in deference to desires expressed by the Opposition in the House of Commons, that the date was fixed for the 1st of January. Therefore it is not like the case of the Education Bill, where the original date was put of to July in consequence of the Bill going on into the autumn. January was inserted in this Bill to meet the wishes
  806
  of the Opposition during the course of this autumn session, to the close of which I am glad to hope we are now drawing. In these circumstances, and on the ground that we do not think it right to leave this matter open, we must adhere to the date in the Bill.
  LORD DUNBOYNEsaid time must elapse before the rules and forms could be prepared and consequently nothing would be lost if the date was postponed.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid they knew perfectly well that the Bill could not come into operation on the 1st of January, even if the Government spoilt the Christmas holidays of the Lord Chancellor and the County Court Judges. But he did not think the point one worth dividing upon.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREappealed to the Lord President to expedite as much as possible the preparation of the necessary forms.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 243.)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHmoved to insert in Clause 52 a new subsection which, he said, dealt with a highly technical subject. It had been a matter of considerable negotiation between those for whom he was acting and the Board of Trade as well as the Lord Chancellor. Under Section 21 (1) of the Act of 1894, on a ship being transferred to a foreigner intimation of the transfer was made to the registrar, who made an entry of the fact in his register. The practice was thereupon to close the register irrespective of any existing unsatisfied mortgages. Under this section the sale might have taken place either abroad or in this country. Section 44, the section regulating these transfers, provided a statutory method

  807
  for sale taking place to a foreigner in a foreign country. This was done by means of a certificate of sale, which consisted of a power of attorney in favour of the foreign agent and included a description of the ship as appearing on the register and narrated any mortgages appearing on the register. The foreign purchaser under the certificate of sale had an opportunity of learning for himself if there were any unpaid mortgages, and might require them to be paid off before he purchased the vessel. Subsection (10) of Section 44 provided that the documents of sale were to be transmitted to the registrar, who—
  "Shall thereupon make a memorandum of the sale in his register book, and the registry of the ship in that book shall be considered as closed, except so far as relates to any unsatisfied mortgages or existing certificates of mortgage entered therein."
  The presumption therefore was that the register remained open with respect to any unpaid mortgages. In practice the register was, as a matter of fact, closed, and the opinion of shipping lawyers was that the exception just quoted provided no remedy whatever. Its terms were vague, and it was only by inference that the Courts could be considered as having the power to enforce unpaid mortgages. He was informed that by far the greatest number of transfers to foreigners did not take place under the provisions of Section 44, but by simple note or bill of sale, and in the Bill now before their Lordships the exception in sub-section (10) had been added to Section 21. The provision was inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons, but for the reasons he had already stated he doubted whether it was very much use. He assured their Lordships that a very large amount of capital was invested in British shipping, and apparently mortgagees, if the reading of the law was right as it now stood, were at the mercy of owners who, by selling a ship to a foreigner, could have the register closed and destroy the security of the mortgage. The only remedy the mortgagee had nagaist the ship was to apply to the Courts to enforce the mortgage, on the ground that the register was still open so far as related to the mortgage. It was, however, doubtful if the Courts would consider that they had the power to enforce the
  808
  mortgage. The confidence of those who dealt in this class of business had been much shaken, and it was of importance that that confidence should be restored. The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper would, it was believed, go far towards effecting that purpose. He understood that after considerable negotiations the legal advisers of the Board of Trade and the Lord Chancellor, and, he supposed, the Foreign Office, were satisfied that this was a fair provision. At any rate the point of it was that if a ship which had an unsatisfied mortgage upon it afterwards came within the jurisdiction of a British Court that Court could order possession to be taken and investigate the whole procedure. He did not think any question of an international character ought to arise. But there was one point on which those whom he represented would like to be satisfied, and that was whether the word "British" Court intended to limit the mortgagees' right against a ship to the Courts of Great Britain, or whether it was considered that the word included the Courts of British possessions. He would imagine himself that there could be no doubt that in this connection the term British would apply to, and include, all Colonial Courts. If he received that assurance he would be content to move the Amendment as it stood, but, without that assurance, he would like to move the deletion of the word "British."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 52, page 30. line 5, after the word 'therein' to insert as a new subsection: '(2) It is hereby declared that where the registry of a ship is considered as closed under subsection (1) of section twenty-one of the principal Act as amended by this section or under sub-section (10) of section forty-four of that Act, on account of a transfer to persons not qualified to be owners of British ships, any unsatisfied registered mortgage (including mortgages made under a certificate of mortgage) may, if the ship comes within the jurisdiction of any British Court which has jurisdiction to enforce the mortgage, or would have had such jurisdiction if the transfer had not been made, be enforced by that Court notwithstanding the transfer, without prejudice, in cases where the ship has been sold under a judgment of a Court, to the effect of that judgment."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in announcing that the Government would

  809
  accept the new sub-section, said the object of shipowners and others who advanced money on British ships was that their security might not be wholly frustrated by the sale being registered abroad and the transfer completed without any regard to the mortgage. We could not say we would not recognise a sale which might be perfectly valid according to the law of the country in which it took place. The only alternative seemed to be that now proposed, that when the ship came within the jurisdiction of any British Court that Court should have the right to enforce the mortgage. He had no doubt at all that the term "British Court" included any British Court whether in Australia or in any other colony. He thought Lord Balfour's Amendment was a very proper one, in order to give the security so much needed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked how the words "British Court" would affect a Court in a British Pretectorate.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid it was impossible to say. What was a Pretectorate to-day might not be a Protectorate to-morrow. But, after all, the number of ships concerned that would enter the ports of a British Protectorate would be very few.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I believe it will be in accordance with the wish of the House, and certainly it will be a very great advantage in regard to getting through the business of the remainder of the session, if we can send this Bill down to the House of Commons at once. Therefore, if there is no objection, I shall move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that so far as the Opposition were concerned, they desired to help the noble Marquess in this matter, especially on account of the extremely courteous and kind way in which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Granard) had conducted the proceedings.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am very pleased to see recognised what I must be permitted to say was the able way in which my noble friend conducted this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGORsaid that when he moved an Amendment at a previous stage Lord Tweedmouth undertook that the provision which he desired inserted, to the effect that every ship should carry some one on board trained in first-aid, would be dealt with by the Government. It would be a matter of great satisfaction to many interested in this point if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could state what the Government proposed to do in regard to this matter.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the matter had been discussed very carefully at the Board of Trade, and it had been decided that after the beginning of next year, when the Bill came into force, there should be added to the syllabus for the examination of second mates a requirement that they should have some knowledge of first-aid. Those instructions would be issued almost immediately.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The effect of that will be that on all large ships there will be somebody possessing first-aid knowledge?
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: Every one going up for a second mate's certificate will have to know something upon this subject.
  On Question (Standing Order XXXIX. having been suspended), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended.

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved an Amendment to that sub-section of Clause 4 which provided that nothing

  811
  in the clause should affect the liability of the trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided for by the Trade Union Act, 1871, Section 9, "except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute." He proposed to strike out the words quoted, in order to insert, "Provided that the said trustees shall not be made liable in any action for any tortious act committed for or on behalf of the union where such tortious act does not touch or concern the property, right, or claim to property of the trade union." He said that he was not now contesting the principle of Clause 4 or the method by which the clause gave effect to the principles involved. He only raised the question whether the clause did not go beyond the avowed intentions of the Bill's promoters. The effect of Section 9 of the Act of 1871 was simply to place the trustees of trade-union funds in exactly the same position as other owners of property. They were to have the same rights and the same liabilities. The object of the sub-section which he proposed to amend was to protect the trade union funds from being taken for debt or damages. Supposing, in the course of a trade dispute, some premises occupied by a union were to be wrecked or damaged. The union were not the owners of the premises, and he suggested that by the words in the Bill the landlord would be deprived of any remedy he might have for securing the safety of his property. Again, supposing the trustees of a trade-union building, perhaps the property of the union, were to allow the premises to be used for an improper purpose, to become a nuisance to the neighbourhood. He suggested that by the words of the clause the neighbours could take no action and would possess no remedy. The object of the Amendment was to provide a remedy for these and similar cases.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 2, line 13, to leave out from the word 'nine' to the end of the subsection and to insert the words "Provided that the said trustees shall not be made liable in any action for any tortious act committed for or on behalf of the union where such tortious act does not touch or concern the pro-
  812
  perty, right, or claim to property of the trade union."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that the point raised was an important one, and it had been stated by the noble Lord with admirable clearness. It was not an Amendment intended to be hostile to the principles of the Bill; as he understood it, the Amendment simply intended to make clear an extremely difficult and intricate point of law. He thought that the language of the clause was less scientific than he would like to see, and, speaking for himself, he believed that the language of the noble Lord's Amendment was preferable to the language of the Bill. He was disposed to recommend it, therefore, to the attention of the Government in order that it might be fully considered by the numerous experts in the other House, and to see whether or not his view was the right one. Of course, he could not pledge the Government ultimately to accept the noble Lord's words, but he promised to bring the Amendment before his colleagues with a view to its incorporation in the Bill.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought the course indicated by the noble and learned Lord was a very convenient one for their Lordships to adopt.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend the definition of the expression "trade dispute" so as to make it read "the expression "trade dispute" means any dispute between employers and workmen, and servants or persons employed in any trade or industry whether in such employers' employment or not, which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of labour of any person." He said that his views upon this subject were expressed when the Bill was in Committee, and he had in no way abated the strength of those views. He believed, however, that the words which he now moved would be acceptable to His Majesty's Government; he sincerely hoped that they would meet the point which he and his noble friends had in mind, and added that if this Amendment was agreed

  813
  to he would move to strike out Clause 6, which provided that the Bill should not apply with regard to disputes connected with land, and was inserted in Committee on his own Motion.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 5, page 2, line 25, after the word 'dispute,' to insert the words 'between employers and workmen, and servants or persona employed in any trade or industry whether in such employers' employment or not."(The, Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORheld strongly himself that Clause 6 went very much further than the Amendment now proposed; but with regard to that Amendment, he desired to adopt the same attitude as he adopted on the last Amendment. He did not see that it altered in any prejudicial sense the meaning of the clause, and he was willing to recommend it also to the consideration of the Government in the other House.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, "To omit Clause 6."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons, to be printed as amended.

  RECORDERS, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES, AND CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a small Bill of modest dimensions, to which I trusty our Lord ships will see no objection. Its object is to make provision as to the appointment of deputies for recorders, stipendiary magistrates and clerks of the peace, and for the temporary performance of the duties of those officers in case of vacancies.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEI think this Bill is to meet an obvious public convenience, and I am sure your Lordships will readily pass it. But I question whether it is wise to provide that the power of a person to act temporarily under this provision should extend over so long a period as six months from the occurrence of the vacancy. That, however, is a matter which I leave for the consideration of my noble and learned friend.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  LICENSING (REMOVAL OF DOUBTS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill that had a remarkable and extremely recent origin. It had its origin in a decision on which I will say nothing. The decision of the Court of King's Bench was that where the conpensation authority in a county borough, which under the Licensing Act consists of the whole body of justices, does not delegate its powers to a committee, then it is necessary that at least a majority of the justices acting for the borough must attend and take part in the proceedings in order to render them valid. I am afraid the consequences of this decision may be far-reaching, because there are other statutes and provisions containing like words and the effect would be to set aside a great number of transactions as being invalid for this technical reason. The legitimate and natural course would be to go to the Court of Appeal on a decision of this kind, but, unfortunately, that takes time and the whole licensing business would be in chaos in the meantime. It has, therefore, been thought preferable for His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to meet this point.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think your Lordships will be most anxious speedily to

  815
  pass this Bill, which remedies what is an obvious inconvenience. I think, however, it might be argued that by the wording of the Bill the justices should be "assembled for the purpose" in the notice. I think it would be better to strike out the words "assembled for the purpose," and insert the words "duly assembled" though I daresay there would be a further point on the word "duly."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I need not say that any suggestion from the noble Lord to secure certainty in this enactment will be gladly accepted.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The noble and learned Lord opposite expressed a desire that the Bill should pass speedily. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, and, if he does not object, we will pass it at once.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I should be very sorry to offer the slightest objection to that course.
  Committee negatived; then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I hope that the arrangement by which your Lordships are willing to take the Second Reading of this Bill this afternoon will end by being convenient to noble Lords opposite. As I understand there is no noble Lord who wishes to oppose the the Second Reading. It is, however, not unlikely that there may be noble Lords opposite who will wish to put down Amendments on various clauses, and the idea therefore is that if we get the Second Reading to-day noble Lords will have longer time in which to consider their Amendments. We will put the Committee stage down for a day convenient to noble Lords opposite, but not before Tuesday or Wednesday next.
  816
  Although this is one of the most important Bills which His Majesty's Government have brought before your Lordships this session I do not propose to say very much upon the question this afternoon. It is so very largely a matter of detail that it is more easily considered in Committee. I think, however, it is right that I should call your Lordships' attention to a few points in which the Bill makes a real change in the law. First, with regard to the definition of the word "workmen." The idea of His Majesty's Government is that there should be a very large extension of the principle of compensation to workmen. There were various proposals which might have been adopted. They might have gone on the present system of only including certain specified classes of workmen, but, on the whole, it appeared better to His Majesty's Government to make the Bill apply to all workmen, with certain exceptions which your Lordships will find set out on page 14 of the Bill. There is, for instance, the exclusion of men employed in casual labour, the idea being that a man who is employed just for the moment should not receive compensation. This does not apply to casual labour at the docks; but men engaged, for instance, to sweep snow off a door-step would not receive compensation. The police are specially excluded because they are provided for otherwise. Then there is also the exclusion of out-workers working on premises not under the control and management of the employer. The present Act only deals with certain dangerous industries and with some 7,500,000 workmen. This Bill, taking the last census as a basis, will include 738,000 clerks, 850,000 shop assistants, 2,000,000 domestic servants, 141,000 seamen, and 1,300,000 workshop employees. Your Lordships will therefore see that the Bill Largely extends the application of the principle of compensation. At present the length of time for which compensation is not paid is fourteen days, but it is proposed under this Bill to reduce the period to seven days. If an injury lasts more than fourteen days, however, compensation will be paid from the date of the accident. This is the result of an arrangement arrived it in another place, and I think

  817
  it meets with general approval. His Majesty's Government have been specially fortunate in being able to have the practical advice of a large number of Members of Parliament who are particularly well acquainted with the circumstances of the workmen who will be included under this Bill. Seamen are not brought in while they are on board ship, but it was felt that there was a moment during which they would not get any compensation. The advantages of the Merchant Shipping Act leave them when they go on shore. From the moment that the Merchant Shipping Act drops them this Bill takes them up. The inclusion of industrial diseases in the Bill is another important matter. Any workman or workwoman who contracts industrial disease as the result of the conditions of his or her employment is just as much deserving of compensation as the man or woman who meets with an accident. Take, for instance, the case of lead poisoning, and so on. It is a novel and very difficult principle which has involved very great discussion amongst those interested in this question, but I am able to state that the provisions in the Bill are generally acceptable to all the parties concerned. The clause which deals with this question is very complicated. It is extremely difficult to apportion exactly the compensation which will be paid by an employer supposing the workman has not been with him very long, but I believe when your Lordships have had time to consider the terms in which that clause is drawn, you will see that it has been designed with fairness and in a way which ought to be generally satisfactory both to employers and employed. The third schedule is somewhat disappointing as there are only six industrial diseases included. The reason is that a Committee has been sitting for some time dealing with certain other diseases, and it was not thought desirable to put any of those in the schedule till the Home Office had had time to go thoroughly into the question. Before July next it is hoped that the Home Office will be able to take advantage of the clause in the Bill by which that office has power to add to the schedule those industrial diseases which it may seem desirable to add. I have now explained the really
  818
  important points in the Bill, and, while I am quite sure that your Lordships all agree with the principle of the Bill, I venture to hope that when we come to consider it in Committee it will not be found to need any very serious amendment.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am not rising to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill nor to prolong the discussion upon it at this stage. The noble Earl said he wished to call our attention to several questions of principle raised in the Bill. He did call our attention to some of them, but omitted to mention a principle certainly more important than any of those he referred to. I allude to the fact that by this Bill for the first time, so far as I know, illegitimacy is recognised. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether there is any precedent in British legislation for recognising illegitimacy. It is now admitted for the first time that illegitimates are to claim compensation on the same footing as legitimates. I need not say that this is a most important change in the law, and one which will have consequences far beyond anything contained in this Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By the law of Scotland illegitimacy may be removed at any time by the marriage of the parents. Under the law of England I am not aware that any rights of property or restitution of status has been conferred upon illegitimate children; but the question is a very large one to express an opinion upon as it relates to the whole range of English law. May I say, however, that illegitimacy is not the fault of the child, who suffers when need for compensation arises. I think your Lordships would not be anxious to press the difference between legitimacy and illegitimacy in cases of that kind.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, having had charge of an amending Bill which passed through your Lordships' House two years ago, I should like to say a few words before this Bill is read a second time. It is

  819
  perfectly clear that this Bill is an enormous extension of the original Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not in the least wish to complain of that, because I think everyone who was connected with the original Act recognised that if you once brought in a Bill for the purpose of giving compensation to workmen in dangerous trades there was no principle which would prevent its being extended to other trades not so dangerous and to the smaller employers. As this Bill has been founded upon the Report of the Committee I must point out that the Bill I introduced adhered more closely to the Committee's recommendations than the present Bill. In many instances the Government have gone beyond and against the Report. In the first place, the Bill extends to seamen, and although no one will grudge seamen having the same opportunities for compensation as other classes of workmen, yet it was strongly felt by the Committee that the case of seamen ought not to be dealt with in the same Bill as compensation for people employed on land. There are other very important extensions. The noble Earl referred to industrial diseases. Compensation for industrial diseases is a new principle altogether. It is not a compensation for accidents, but a compensation for diseases in the course of employment; and I doubt whether the terms of the Bill will safeguard the employer in cases where a workman has disobeyed the regulations for the preservation of health. Apart from that it seems to me very doubtful whether, if a workman suffered from some of the common diseases, not industrial diseases, such as consumption, arising from living in unhealthy rooms, he might not in the future be able to get compensation. There is one other very serious extension in the Bill—the extension to small employers. Although this is a perfectly just corollary of the former Bill, I am afraid, as it is not accompanied by any system of insurance, that it will give rise to great difficulties. The object in a Bill of this sort should be that the workman should be certain to get compensation if he is entitled to it. There will be a very large number of small employers who will not insure, and will be unable to pay compensation
  820
  for death or total disablement In foreign countries it has been recognised that it is absolutely unfair to give compensation to the workmen of every employer unless some State insurance or some recognised insurance system is adopted. I am afraid that in regard to these cases there is fear that workmen and small employers will suffer. I congratulate the noble Earl on the fact that he has to deal with a Bill which is in a much more reasonable state than the Bill with which I had to deal two years ago. In the first place we have got rid of the undertaker, a name not connected with very pleasant associations at any time. So far as I was concerned I found the greatest difficulty sometimes in making the effect of the Bill clear. A few points of detail in this Bill will require consideration in Committee. I have always been in favour of compensating workmen, and the experience of employers under the last Act proved that it could be done at much less cost than many people imagined. I recognise that with the large representation of labour in the other House it was perfectly natural that the law should be extended to a considerable extent in the way that it has been in the Bill now before your Lordships.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I remember aright the noble Marquess proposed the other evening, and the House accepted, an arrangement by which our proceedings were to terminate at three o'clock this afternoon. That hour is now passed, and it is therefore obvious that we cannot continue a Second Reading debate on this important Bill. The Bill touches a number of points which no doubt can be most conveniently dealt with in Committee. At the same time it does involve some very important questions of principle, and therefore I hope it may be understood that any noble Lords who desire to address your Lordships upon these questions of principle will have full opportunity of doing so on the Motion to go into Committee. I suggest that the Second Reading of the Bill should be agreed to to-day in order to give noble Lords an opportunity of putting their Amendments on the Paper.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: That is exactly what I intended. If any noble Lord now abstains from making a Second Reading speech he will have full opportunity of doing so on going into Committee.
  On Question, Motion agreed to Bill read 2aaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this Bill is similar to the Bill which was introduced in the last Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will not object to its now being read a Second Time.
  Moved, "That this Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Three o clock to Monday next, a quarter past Four o clock.